pm&m fao

Wolfgang Bayer andAnn Waters-Bayer

Participatory Monitoring

and Evaluation (PM&E)

with pastoralists:

a review of experiences and

annotated bibliography

Eschborn 2002

Wolfgang Bayer andAnn Waters-Bayer

Participatory Monitoring

and Evaluation (PM&E)with pastoralists:

a review of experiences andannotated bibliography

Eschborn 2002

ii

Publishers:Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbHDivision for Rural DevelopmentP. O. Box 5180, D-65726 Eschborn, GermanyInternet: http://www.gtz.de

ETC Ecoculture / ETC FoundationP.O. Box 64, NL-3830 AB Leusden, NetherlandsInternet: http://www.etcint.org

Printed by:Sierke Verlag & Consulting, Elsa-Hoppe-Weg 9, D-37085 Göttingen, Germanye-mail: [email protected]

iii

FOREWORD

For decades, agencies of development cooperation (DC) have beenworking in the drylands of developing and transition countries. Theseregions are an immense challenge for technical cooperation because oftheir high climatic variability, their susceptibility to desertification and theireconomic and political sensitivity, including their potential for social andresource-based conflict. The important insights gained from cooperationwith pastoralists include the central role of resource-use rights, theimportance of indigenous knowledge and cooperation with traditionalinstitutions, the necessity for a flexible approach, and especially the roleof participation as a fundamental conceptual and practical element ofcooperation.

On the basis of this assessment, the GTZ commissioned already in 1994a study on experiences gained in participatory planning with pastoralists.This resulted in the document Planning with pastoralists: PRA and more– a review of methods focused on Africa. A French version (Planificationavec des pasteurs: MARP et au-delà – un compte rendu de méthodes

centré sur l’Afrique) appeared in 1995. This overview and analysis of ap-proaches and methods was received with great interest far beyond thecircle of those concerned only with pastoralism. Today, eight years afterits publication, the document is still being requested.

During that review, it became clear that there were few experiences doc-umented with respect to a very important element of participation: theobservation and evaluation of project activities and resource manage-ment by the target group, i.e. participatory monitoring and evaluation(PM&E). To what extent is this instrument employed in DC with pasto-ralists? What are the main successes and best practices? Where do themain difficulties lie? What can the experiences teach us?

PM&E is a topic important for DC as a whole, particularly in the realm ofnatural resource management, because it embraces questions of impactand sustainability. When pastoralists are involved in PM&E, the opportu-nities for learning are especially large, because cooperation with thesegroups of resource users is particularly challenging, given their mobilityand their – in most cases – social exclusion and political and economicmarginalisation. Does PM&E have a special significance here because ofthis situation? Is PM&E even possible in such settings?

iv

The present document was prepared with a view to finding some answersto these questions. It is based on a review of published and “grey” litera-ture, communication with persons and institutions cooperating with pas-toralists and the field experiences of the authors, particularly in Africa.Without the willingness of a large number of persons and projects to re-port very openly on their experiences with PM&E, this document couldnever have been produced. We extend our warm thanks to them all.

The interest of ETC Ecoculture in joining the GTZ in publishing this re-view stems from its years of involvement in Participatory TechnologyDevelopment (PTD), an approach to promoting local innovation on thebasis of experimentation led by farmers and pastoralists. PM&E plays acentral role in PTD. ETC has given particular attention to building upmulti-stakeholder platforms for planning, implementing and evaluatingnatural resource management, in which special efforts must often bemade to include livestock-keepers, particularly the more mobile groups.The authors of this review are associated with the Livestock Group of theETC Foundation.

We hope that the present document is received just as enthusiastically asPlanning with pastoralists: PRA and more and likewise becomes a val-uable instrument for people and projects involved in DC, also beyondpastoral development.

Annette von Lossau Laurens van VeldhuizenGTZ, Eschborn, Germany ETC Ecoculture, Leusden, Netherlands

September 2002

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword iii

Table of contents v

Acronyms vi

Summary / Résumé viii

PART I: REVIEW OF EXPERIENCES 1

1. Introduction 31.1 Background 31.2 Some definitions 31.3 Justification for the review 61.4 Methods, boundaries and limitations of the review 7

2. Some documented experiences of PM&E with pastoralists 102.1 General comments on findings 102.2 PM&E of natural resources 112.3 PM&E of local institutions and social relations in NRM 162.4 PM&E of intervention projects 212.5 PM&E in participatory experimentation 24

3. Assessment of main approaches and methods used 273.1 Some useful tools 273.2 Opportunities for enhancing participatory learning 323.3 Issues, dangers and traps 36

4. Creating favourable framework conditions for PM&E withpastoralists 42

5. Conclusions 45

6. References 50

PART II: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 57

A. Useful documents on PM&E in NRM in general 59

B. Useful guides on PM&E in NRM 62

C. Documents on PM&E in pastoralism and livestock-keeping 66

ANNEX: Electronic sources of further information on pastoralism 89

vi

ACRONYMS

AAS ActionAid-Somaliland

ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

ACORD Agency for Cooperation and Research in Development

AgREN Agricultural Research and Extension Network

APAM Aires Protegées d’Andasibe/Mantadia

CAHW Community-based Animal Health Worker

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical

(International Centre for Tropical Agriculture)

CIP Centro Internacional de la Papa (International Potato Centre)

CRDP Central Rangeland Development Project

DFID Department for International Development

ELCI Environmental Liaison Committee International

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GATE German Appropriate Technology Exchange

GRAAP Groupe de Recherche et d’Appui pour l’Autopromotion

Paysanne

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

(German Agency for Technical Cooperation)

HRM Holistic Resource Management

ICLARM International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management

IDRC International Development Research Centre

IDS Institute for Development Studies

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development

IIRR International Institute of Rural Reconstruction

ILEIA Information Centre for Low-External-Input and Sustainable

Agriculture

IPSOS Integrated Participatory Seasonal Observation System

ITDG Intermediate Technology Development Group

ITP Intermediate Technology Publications

vii

IUCN The World Conservation Union

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MARP Méthode Accélérée de Recherche Participative

MDP Marsabit Development Programme

NAHA Nomadic Animal Health Auxiliary

NGO non-governmental organisation

NRI Natural Resources Institute

NRM Natural Resource Management

ODA Overseas Development Agency

ODI Overseas Development Institute

PE Participatory Evaluation

PIM Participatory Impact Monitoring

PLA Participatory Learning and Action

PM&E Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

PRGA Participatory Research and Gender Analysis

PSB Projet Sahel Burkinabé

PTD Participatory Technology Development

RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal

SARDEP Sustainable Animal and Range Development Programme

SARL Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods

SEPO Succès, Echecs, Potentialités, Obstacles

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

TDCPU Turkana Drought Contingency Planning Unit

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNSO Office to Combat Desertification and Drought

(now Dryland Development Centre)

UPWARD Users’ Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development

USAID United State Agency for International Development

VITA Volunteers for International Technical Assistance

VSF Vétérinaires sans Frontières

viii

SUMMARY

This report reviews documented experiences, including “grey” literature,

on participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) with pastoralists andother livestock-keepers. It is divided into two parts: an analytical assess-ment and an annotated bibliography. Key websites for further informa-

tion are given in an annex.

The review yielded numerous training reports, guides and plans for

establishing PM&E systems, but few examples of actual implementationof systems that gave balanced attention to concerns of both the pas-toralists and the intervening agents. This may be because:

• pastoralists in remote areas prefer to manage their own affairs andare reluctant to share information in joint monitoring and evaluationwith other stakeholders;

• development agency staff and government officials do not want torelinquish control; and/or

• projects, administrations, pastoral groups and local institutions do

not have the capacities to carry out PM&E in remote pastoral areas.

Under-reporting of experiences may also play a role. Staff of projectsand development agencies often do not have the time to document

experiences for a wider audience, or PM&E activities may be so looselystructured that they are difficult to describe.

The available reports on PM&E with livestock-keepers and in natural re-source management (NRM) in a wider sense point to some importantprerequisites. The issues to be monitored have to be of genuine interest

to the partners involved. Indicators must be simple and capable of com-municating something to the people wanting to act on the results. Therecording needs to be done in a form that partners can manage. It must

be taken into account that pastoral communities in developing countrieshave a strong oral tradition, low levels of literacy and little access tomodern information and communication technology, except radio.

ix

It appears doubtful whether pastoralists would find most of the currentlyapplied monitoring systems sufficiently beneficial to continue practising

them together with local groups of stakeholders without external sup-port. Notable exceptions are simple PM&E systems with low intensity ofdata collection, using methods of recording and analysis that depend

more on memory and discussion than on written records.

Most pastoralists do not accept data-intensive forms of monitoring.

People living in sparsely populated areas, as drylands tend to be, ap-preciate the opportunity to discuss with peers and seem to preferperiodic meetings during which environmental or socio-economic (e.g.

market, conflict) conditions can be discussed in a semi-structured way.At such meetings, various visualisation techniques can be useful, suchas before-and-after matrices, maps, proportional piling, flow or impact

diagrams, and SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities andthreats) charts. The repeated use of such tools in successive workshopscan form an element of PM&E. Thus, instead of frequent and continuous

observations and records, a series of short evaluation workshops couldbe used to monitor progress.

PM&E is an integral part of local capacity building and institutionaldevelopment. It can create a feeling of ownership among all partners.Appropriate forms of PM&E can help the local people manage their own

affairs better and increase the likelihood that project-supported activitieswill continue after the project ends.

However, a project pursuing PM&E can fall into several traps. The mostbasic one is ignoring the questions: Why monitor? Who needs and willuse what data? If scientists or development workers wish to monitor

certain parameters that are not of immediate interest to the livestock-keepers, it may become necessary to pay local enumerators or toprovide other forms of incentive (e.g. free veterinary care) to persuade

livestock-keepers to take the measurements and keep the records.

Participatory approaches to collecting and interpreting information can

lead to biases, especially where pastoralists are involved who do nothave a relationship of trust with outsiders or who see the exercise as a

x

chance to seize advantages. Many intervention projects are not suf-ficiently aware of the extent to which PM&E of environmental trends,

organisational development or project-supported activities can becomepart of a power play between different resource-user groups or levels ofgovernment.

PM&E can be introduced deliberately as a means of shifting power re-lations in the sense of giving voice to previously marginalised user

groups, such as women or nomads. This is possible in the framework ofmulti-stakeholder platforms that function as monitoring mechanisms forbetter management of common resources. Facilitated negotiation allows

the different interest groups to reach agreement on what can be donewithin their capacities and means and what needs to be monitored bywhom. The negotiation process must continue through joint assessment

of the very PM&E system that the platform puts in place, examiningwhether the concerns of all stakeholder groups have been included.Thus, platform building becomes a continuous process fed by self-

evaluation.

The low population density in pastoral areas, their remoteness and their

poor infrastructure make PM&E costly, even if records are limited to themost essential. These costs must be justified in terms of the contributionthat the PM&E process makes to building capacities for managing

natural, including human, resources. With this in mind, developmentagencies truly committed to pastoral development need to make long-term investments in participatory approaches in the framework of

process-oriented projects and programmes. PM&E can then be a veryuseful means of enhancing joint learning by pastoralists and other de-velopment planners about sustainable use of the rangelands and im-

proving pastoral livelihoods.

xi

RESUME

Ce rapport représente le bilan des expériences (y compris des expéri-ences "inédites") relatives au suivi et à l'évaluation participatifs (PM&E)avec des pasteurs et d'autres groupes d'éleveurs. Il est divisé en deux

parties : une évaluation analytique et une bibliographie annotée. Pourde plus amples informations, des adresses de sites web sont proposéesen annexe.

Ce bilan fait état de nombreux rapports de formation, guides et pro-grammes de mise en place de PM&E, mais de peu d'exemples de leur

mise en œuvre concertée avec les éleveurs d'une part, et les inter-venants, d'autre part. Cette situation résulte peut être :

• du fait que les éleveurs des zones éloignées préfèrent gérer eux-

mêmes leurs problèmes et hésitent à partager leurs informations aucours de séances communes avec d'autres parties prenantes ;

• de l'équipe de l'agence de développement et des fonctionnaires du

gouvernement, qui ne sont pas forcément déterminés à renoncer àexercer leur contrôle ; et/ou

• des projets, des administrations, des groupes pastoraux et autres

institutions locales qui n'ont pas les capacités de promouvoir lePM&E dans les zones pastorales éloignées.

Par ailleurs, l'absence de rapports écrits n'est pas à négliger. En effet,

l'équipe impliquée manque souvent du temps nécessaire à la présenta-tion de ses expériences à une plus large audience ou, parfois, le PM&Eest si peu structuré qu'il est difficile à décrire.

Les rapports disponibles concernant le PM&E avec des éleveurs et,dans un sens plus large, la gestion des ressources naturelles, mettent

en évidence le fait que certaines conditions préalables sont indispen-sables. Les questions prises en compte doivent représenter un intérêtréel pour les partenaires impliqués. Les indicateurs doivent être simples

et efficaces pour les personnes qui devront utiliser les résultats pouragir. La forme d’enregistrement doit être utilisable par les partenaires.On doit notamment se souvenir du fait que les communautés pastorales

xii

des pays en développement possèdent une importante tradition orale,un faible niveau d'alphabétisation et, qu'en dehors de la radio, elles ont

peu accès aux techniques de communication.

Il est peu vraisemblable que les éleveurs parviennent à considérer la

plu-part des systèmes de suivi comme suffisamment avantageux pourpersister à les utiliser entre eux, entre groupes locaux de parties pre-nantes, sans aide extérieure. Les systèmes de PM&E les plus simples,

comportant peu de recueil de données et une méthode d'analyse baséedavantage sur la mémoire et la discussion que sur les écrits, constituentcependant des exceptions notables.

La plupart des éleveurs n'acceptent pas les modèles de suivi intensif.Les personnes vivant dans des régions faiblement peuplées, comme les

zones arides, apprécient l'opportunité de discuter avec des pairs et lesréunions régulières, au cours desquelles les problèmes liés au contexteenvironnemental ou socioéconomique (e.g. marché, conflit) peuvent

être discutés de manière semi-informelle. Lors de telles réunions,plusieurs techniques de visualisation peuvent être utiles, comme lesmatrices avant-après, les cartes, "empilement proportionnel", dia-

grammes de flux et d'impact, SEPO (Succès, Echecs, Potentialités,Obstacles). L'usage répété de ce type d'outils au cours d'ateliers suc-cessifs pourrait constituer un élément de l'approche PM&E. Ainsi, les

trop fréquents suivis pourraient être remplacés par de courts ateliersd'évaluation.

L'approche PM&E est une partie intégrante du processus de développe-ment local. Elle peut créer un sentiment de propriété parmi tous lespartenaires. Une démarche appropriée peut aider les communautés

locales à mieux gérer leurs affaires et accroître la probabilité d'unecontinuité des activités soutenues par un projet après la fin de ce projet.

Cependant, un projet développant une approche PM&E peut rencontrerde nombreux écueils. Le plus courant consiste à éviter de se poser desquestions telles que : Pourquoi un suivi ? Quelles données recueillir ? A

qui seront-elles utiles et qui les utilisera ? Si les scientifiques ou lespersonnes impliquées dans le développement souhaitent prendre en

xiii

compte certains paramètres qui ne représentent pas un intérêt immédiatpour les éleveurs, il peut devenir nécessaire de rémunérer du personnel

local ou d'inciter de diverses manières (e.g. soins vétérinaires gratuits)les éleveurs à mesurer et enregistrer les données.

Les approches participatives relatives à la collecte et au traitement desdonnées peuvent déboucher sur des partis pris, surtout lorsque les éle-veurs impliqués ne développent pas de relation de confiance avec les

personnes extérieures ou qu'ils ne voient en ces approches qu'unesource de profit. De nombreux projets ne sont pas suffisamment avertisdu fait que la démarche PM&E appliquée à l'environnement, au dé-

veloppement organisationnel ou aux activités soutenues par le projetpeut faire partie d'un jeu de pouvoir entre les divers groupes d'utilisa-teurs et le gouvernement.

L'approche PM&E peut être délibérément utilisée afin de donner laparole à des groupes préalablement marginalisés, comme les femmes

ou les nomades. Ceci est possible dans le cadre de plates-formes desuivi, regroupant toutes les parties prenantes, dans le but d'unemeilleure gestion des ressources communes. Le fait de faciliter la

négociation permet aux différents groupes de parvenir à un accord surce qui peut être réalisé avec les moyens dont on dispose, sur ce qui doitfaire l'objet d'un suivi et sur qui doit effectuer ce suivi. Le processus de

négociation doit se poursuivre avec l'évaluation du système de PM&Emis en place, en s'assurant de la prise en compte des préoccupationsde tous les groupes d'intervenants. Ces plates-formes correspondent

ainsi à un processus continu d'auto-évaluation.

La faible densité de population des zones pastorales, leur éloignement

et leur faible infrastructure font de l'approche PM&E un processuscoûteux, même si le recueil et le traitement des données se limitent àl'essentiel. Ces coûts doivent être justifiés par la contribution de l'ap-

proche PM&E au développement des capacités nécessaires à la ges-tion des ressources naturelles, y compris humaines. En tenant comptede ces aspects, les organismes réellement engagés dans le développe-

ment pastoral doivent investir à long terme dans l'approche participativeau sein de programmes orientés. Le processus PM&E peut ainsi se

xiv

révéler un moyen très utile, pour les pasteurs et autres acteurs dedéveloppement, de contribuer à l'utilisation durable des pâturages et à

l'amélioration de la condition du monde pastoral.

REVIEW OF EXPERIENCES 1

Part I:

Review of experiences


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Eight years ago, we reviewed experiences in participatory planning in

pastoral settings, particularly in West Africa but also taking experiencesmade elsewhere into account. The report, Planning with Pastoralists

(Waters-Bayer & Bayer 1994, French version 1995), contained a critical

appraisal of participatory planning in pastoral development, adescription of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools and how theyhave been used with livestock-keepers, and an annotated bibliography.

The biggest gap at that time had been with respect to documentation ofparticipatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E). As the importance ofPM&E as a component of the management cycle became increasingly

recognised, the GTZ Division for Rural Development that had commis-sioned the first review requested an analysis of the experiences made inthe meantime in PM&E and impact assessment with pastoralists. Like

the previous one, this review is written primarily for GTZ staff inGermany and overseas projects, the staff of governmental and NGOpartners of such projects, and pastoral development workers in general.

This report, like the previous one, includes a review of experiences andan annotated bibliography, but gives less attention to tools, as thesetend to be similar to those described already in the first report. More-

over, the appraisal made it very evident that it is not the tools but ratherthe approach taken to PM&E that is crucial for success. This is notmeant to be a guide to PM&E. Plenty of these already exist. It is rather

an appraisal of whether and how PM&E has been practised incollaboration with pastoralists.

1.2 Some definitions

Monitoring refers, in development parlance, to a continuous process ofcollecting information about the performance of a project, in recentyears often the measuring of progress according to a Project Planning

Matrix. In more general parlance, monitoring refers to observing change,

REVIEW OF EXPERIENCES4

such as in market prices, rangeland vegetation or climate, so as todiscern trends. In processes of natural resource management (NRM),

monitoring refers to tracking progress towards sustainability in environ-mental and socio-organisational terms. To be useful, a monitoring sys-tem must include a communication system that allows information to be

exchanged between the people concerned and to be interpreted so thatit can form a basis for taking appropriate decisions. The essential com-ponents of a monitoring system are:

• selecting indicators (see definition below) for each activity anddesired impact

• collecting data concerning the indicators

• analysing the data

• presenting the information in a way that can be understood by thoseconcerned

• using the information to improve the work (adapted from Gosling &Edwards 1995).

Evaluation refers to making a judgement on the worth of something – in

development parlance, usually judging the extent to which projectactivities have achieved their intended objectives, including theoverarching objective to which the project is meant to contribute. It

sometimes but not always includes an assessment of the impacts,whether intended or unintended, of the project activities. Ideally,evaluation is a means to learn from experience and to correct direction.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) intertwines the two in such a waythat the observations during monitoring are systematised and frequentlyinterpreted so that assessment on process and impacts contributes to

continual learning.

Indicators are quantitative or qualitative variables that can be meas-ured or described and, when observed periodically, demonstrate trends;

they help to communicate complex phenomena (Hardi & Pinter 1995,MacGillivray & Zadek 1995). Scientific indicators tend to be measurablein quantitative terms; they are global within a given discipline and are

meant to be comparable across space and time. Grassroots (indige-

nous) indicators are signals used by local people (individuals, groups,


communities) based on their own observations and local knowledge,applied within specific cultural, ecological and spiritual contexts; they

tend to be more descriptive.

Participation in development cooperation is a process in which differentactors negotiate and share control over development initiatives and the

related decisions and resources, with particular attention being given toinvolving groups that had been previously excluded or marginalised.Levels of local participation are defined primarily by the degree to which

local people (“beneficiaries”, “target groups”) have the power to make orinfluence decisions.

Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) refers to the

involvement of multiple stakeholders in the design and implementationof observing, systematising and interpreting processes as a basis forjoint decisions about improving their joint activities. PM&E is not an end

in itself but rather a management tool, whether for managing naturalresources, managing social relations within a given area or managingrelations between local people and outside agencies (e.g. government

services, intervention projects).

Whereas conventional M&E is often regarded as a tool of control byproject management and donor agencies, PM&E is meant to be a pro-

cess that enhances the learning of all actors. Participation in M&E mayrefer to participation of staff from a project and its partner organisations,but in this review we are referring to participation of the livestock-

keepers themselves in systems of monitoring change and adaptingmanagement accordingly. This means that the livestock-keepers aredirectly involved in setting the objectives of the PM&E process, choosing

the indicators and methods, and interpreting and using the results.

The concept of PM&E is usually introduced by an intervening project. Insome cases, the objective is to gain better feedback from the “target

groups” so that the project work can be improved. In other cases or inaddition, the objective may be to strengthen the capacities of the localpeople to manage their resources, whether natural or financial or social.

For example, this was the explicit objective of introducing PM&E in theMarsabit Development Programme (MDP), a GTZ-supported project in


Kenya. MDP regarded the direct involvement of the local people andorganisations in monitoring and evaluating their development as a step

in increasing their self-help capacity, i.e. in meeting the project purpose.It therefore set out to develop a monitoring system with four functions:

1. To build the capacity of project partners and intermediaries fromthe local population to reflect, analyse and take action

2. To increase accountability to partners, beneficiaries, managersand donors

3. To derive lessons that can lead to corrective action by partners

4. To derive lessons to help the project improve its ownimplementation (MDP 1998).

1.3 Justification for the review

It is now widely recognised that the natural resources in semi-arid and

arid areas are used for multiple purposes, e.g. grazing, hunting, harvest-ing thatch grass, collecting wild foods and medicines and, in favourableniches, cropping. The different user groups need to be involved in plan-

ning, monitoring and evaluating resource use. However, most experi-ences in participatory approaches to land-use planning, such as “Ges-

tion des Terroirs Villageois” in francophone West Africa, involve settled

crop farmers and largely exclude mobile pastoralists, who depend onnatural pasture for their livelihood. The territory-based approach toplanning favours those who occupy the area permanently and not those

who use it only temporarily or sporadically (Waters-Bayer et al 1995).

The need to monitor environmental conditions is even more important

for pastoralists than for other users of natural resources, becausepastoralists generally use the more marginal land (too high and/or dryfor cropping). Their livelihoods are at peril if they do not react in time to

threats of drought, floods or snow. The great strength of pastoralists istheir flexibility: their capacity to move their animals in reaction tochanges in environmental or socio-political conditions. Particularly the

pastoral groups that operate in drought-prone and conflict-prone areas,and the outside agencies concerned with these people, need torecognise a potentially threatening situation early enough to be able to

react appropriately. PM&E would seem to be one way to do this.


In view of the need to involve pastoralists in multi-stakeholder decision-making about resource use, which must rely on some form of

collaborative M&E, and in view of the potentials that PM&E seems tooffer for better decision-making by all concerned with marginal areas,GTZ is keen to identify best practices in PM&E with pastoralists. These

experiences should serve as sources of learning and inspiration.

1.4 Methods, boundaries and limitations of the review

We contacted many of the same people and institutions that hadcontributed to the first review and are active in pastoral development

work. We also sought documents in library databases of developmentagencies and with a search machine in the Internet. We sought, aboveall, examples of actual application of (as opposed to plans for) PM&E in

resource management involving pastoralists as key actors.

We first sought cases in systems of pastoralism, agropastoralism, agro-sylvopastoralism and watershed management including livestock-

keepers. We sought experiences in PM&E with pastoralists also in“developed” countries, e.g. Australia and New Zealand, in order to see ifthey yielded lessons for work in “developing” countries. Having found

relatively few experiences in what we saw as “genuine” PM&E, i.e. M&Eplanned together with the livestock-keepers to monitor at least what theywant to monitor and in the ways they want to do it, we looked for cases

of more general NRM projects that included PM&E of local environmen-tal and socio-organisational change. Some of these may have includedlivestock-keepers but this was not evident in the documentation.

Another reason for including reports on PM&E in NRM, even whenlivestock-related issues were not central, is that it was noted already in

Planning with Pastoralists that, where pastoralists did take the lead inmanaging the rangelands, it was often not the grazing resources thatreceived their initial attention. They wanted to manage natural resources

also for other purposes, such as protecting areas for collecting wildcereals or harvesting water to grow food crops rather than forage (Marty1985, Cullis & Pacey 1992). This indicates that the entire livelihood sys-

tem of the resource users, also of pastoralists, needs to be addressed inrange management.


Although the focus in this review is on the integrated process of PM&E,

we did include some cases of one-time participatory evaluation exer-cises with pastoralists carried out in the framework of projects that triedto involve local resource users as decision-makers throughout the

implementation of the jointly planned work. These can indicate howmore continuous forms of participatory monitoring could be developed.

Not included in this review of PM&E are cases of:

• project-led M&E using livestock-keepers simply to record dataneeded by the project

• evoking livestock-keepers’ perspectives in the assessment ofresearcher-led on-farm experiments.

Some methods have been developed by researchers to facilitate moni-toring of production and marketing data by pastoralists, such as milk

recording by illiterate Fulani women (Waters-Bayer 1988). However, thiswas a recording system proposed by the research organisation. Thewomen did not need this level of measured accuracy themselves; their

observations and memories of seasonal changes in milk yield andimpact of interventions were sufficient for their own purposes. We do notcriticise such approaches but simply note that we do not regard them as

examples of PM&E.

By far the majority of materials that reported on “participatory moni-

toring” with livestock-keepers were, in fact, reporting on consultations(surveys, interviews and use of Rapid Rural Appraisal [RRA] techniquesto obtain information) or herd monitoring for scientific analysis. They

were not processes in which the livestock-keepers themselves wereinvolved in determining what was to be monitored and for whatpurposes, and in analysing and using the results themselves. It is

indeed important that development planners and scientists solicit theviews of livestock-keepers. However, this is not the type of experiencethat we were seeking for this review.

In numerous cases of monitoring herd productivity, farmers’ participationconsisted of providing information to project staff and restraining ani-


mals so that they can be weighed, thus speeding up the work of theproject staff. This is described, for example, by Bosma et al (1996), who

found that, even when they tried to motivate farmers by presenting themwith the results on animal weight development, the farmers regarded themonitoring as time-consuming and not yielding any new information for

them. Bosma et al conclude that such monitoring is of little use forproposing improvements in animal keeping and suggest, instead, thaton-farm trials be implemented immediately after rapid diagnostic

surveys. Farmers are then much more likely to want to record animalparameters of interest to them, in order to assess the effects of theinnovations they are testing.

The above-mentioned case was frankly described and self-criticallyassessed. In other descriptions of “participatory” data collection, the role

of the livestock-keepers is not made explicit. It can sometimes, however,be derived from other comments in the report. For example, anevaluation of an Animal Health and Livestock Production Programme in

Afghanistan carried out in 1997 states that “Both men and women arecapable of using the participatory monitoring forms provided by theproject to monitor changes in their livestock production”

(http://www.fao.org/participation/ afghanistan-lessons.html 18.04.01).Documents that did not make clear how the livestock-keepersparticipated in the M&E, e.g. how they were involved in designing the

forms, were not included in this review.


2. SOME DOCUMENTED EXPERIENCES OF PM&E

WITH PASTORALISTS

2.1 General comments on findings

The outcome of our review is sobering. Once again, as in the case ofthe review of participatory planning, double-refereed journals and books

yielded few references to PM&E with pastoralists. However, eventhrough informal channels (in “grey” literature such as project reportsand unpublished papers), we could find little documentation of PM&E

actually being implemented together with pastoralists. Similarly, in aliterature review of participatory environmental monitoring, Abbot andGuijt (1998) found many hopes attached to this approach but few

practical experiences.

In contrast to the scarcity of practical experiences with PM&E with

livestock-keepers, there are numerous reports on the use of PRA toolsin joint situation analyses. There are also many offers of and reports ontraining in PM&E, and still more reports mention the necessity for it.

Similarly, it seems to have become quite fashionable these days to writeguidebooks on PM&E and participatory impact assessment in a generalsense. The principles in these books can be applied to projects dealing

with pastoral development.

In the last 4–5 years, a few reports have been compiled on workshopsor lengthier procedures to design PM&E systems with livestock-keepers,

but seldom was it possible to find documentation on how the systemactually worked. In some cases, responses we received to our requestsfor follow-up reports expressed regret that the project had ended or that

no funds had been available for documenting the experience.

The few experiences in PM&E in pastoral settings that we could find canbe divided into four major types:

1. PM&E of change in the condition of natural resources(environmental monitoring)

2. PM&E of the way the resources are being managed, i.e. of localinstitutions and social relations (including management ofcommunity-based animal health services)


3. PM&E of intervention projects1, referring primarily to the interactions/ collaboration between the local resource managers and externalsupporting agencies such as government services or projects

4. PM&E in participatory experimentation (on-farm / in-herd trialsimplemented by livestock-keepers and scientists or developmentworkers).

2.2 PM&E of natural resources

Most cases of PM&E involving pastoralists in any way – also as one ofseveral groups of resource users – focused on changes in the naturalresources (vegetation, water, soil, wildlife) and livestock, assessing the

impact of pastoralists and others (including intervention projects) on theresources. The monitoring was meant to guide the users in decisions onmanaging the natural resources, the livestock and related inputs.

Drought monitoring. As would be expected among pastoralists, manyof whom live in marginal and highly variable arid environments,monitoring the risk of drought is a focus of attention in many pastoral

development projects. Pastoralists clearly need to monitor closely theclimatic variability and resulting variability in forage supply. Realisingthat a drought is imminent and reacting in time is a matter of survival for

them. Rainfall, range condition, water supply, condition of the animals,drop in milk yields or falling price ratios between livestock and cerealsare some indicators of an early stage of drought. Traditionally,

pastoralists have a range of strategies to cope with drought, such asherd splitting, long-distance migration, sales of animals down to anucleus herd, or diversifying income through wage labour or small-scale

business (e.g. Niamir 1990, Galaty & Johnson 1990, TDCPU 1992).

After the droughts in large parts of Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, whenthe traditional coping mechanisms did not function and human suffering

was widespread, pastoral development projects began to look intodrought early-warning systems. Some projects charged with the task of

1 As a project is any planned undertaking and as pastoralists have their own projects, theterm “intervention project” is used here to refer to agencies that come into an area fromoutside with the intention of bringing about some type of change within the area.


developing such systems produced extensive sets of data, whichtheoretically could give an early alert (e.g. the bulletins of the Drought

Monitoring Project). However, the alert reached, at best, the relieforganisations but rarely the herders themselves. The manuals andbulletins (e.g. TDCPU 1992, Drought Monitoring Project 1993) give no

indication that drought monitoring was participatory, in the sense thatthe pastoralists not only provided information but could also use theresults. Where indigenous indicators were used, it was in an extractive

rather than a participatory way.

In the more developed countries where pastoralism covers large areas,such as in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, drought alerts can

rely on extensive sets of data and, at least theoretically, these can becommunicated to livestock-keepers and rangeland managers viaproducers’ journals, radio or computer-based information systems. The

set of data now used for predicting drought includes meteorological dataand assessment of range conditions by means of remote sensing andinterviews with producers (Stafford Smith et al 1997). Analysis of the

data is the responsibility of the agricultural administration, althoughproducers can gain access to computerised decision-support systemsbased on these monitoring data. This is the case of provision of a

service, rather than PM&E.

Early-warning systems based on more global data are potentially usefulfor developing countries and especially for pastoralists in remote and

drought-prone areas. However, we could not find any report thatpastoralists in developing countries received the conclusions derivedfrom analysis of such data.

Range and water monitoring. A “classical” example of environmentalPM&E with pastoralists in developing countries remains that describedby Marty (see Box 1). Le Gall (1999) reports very briefly on World Bank

efforts to support the introduction of Holistic Resource Management(HRM) in West Africa. An integral part of this approach is pastureassessment on the spot and on an almost daily basis. Key indicators are

selected that the land users can understand, accept and replicate intheir own monitoring. A project implemented by a local NGO in the


Somali Region of Ethiopia is likewise experimenting with HRM on“demonstration plots” that are supposed to be monitored by the Somali

pastoralists (Yohannes & Waters-Bayer 2002). In Namibia, the GTZ-supported Sustainable Animal and Range Development Programme(SARDEP) started training in pasture assessment and improved models

of pasture management. This involves frequent pasture assessment bylivestock-keepers and pasture managers (Walther, pers. comm. 2001).In a project in Niger, joint pasture classification by project staff and

resource users formed part of a process of participatory planning andinstitution building. After five years of this preparation process, theactual pasture management started in 2000 (Vogt & Vogt 2000). These

cases would merit continued attention and documentation to reveal howthe PM&E systems are actually functioning.

Box 1: PM&E in grassland management

Having experienced severe drought, pastoralists in northern Mali were open to new ideasas to how to manage the natural vegetation on which their herds depend. They enteredinto discussions with government livestock services and external consultants to identifypossible improvements in resource management. They jointly observed current rangeconditions and analysed how these had changed. Some older pastoralists recalled that, inthe past, certain pastures were not grazed during the rains and were then available in thedry season. They also noted that fonio or hungry rice (Panicum laetum), which pastoralistscollected to eat in times of need, had become scarce.

They started experimenting on a small scale with the reservation of fonio areasfrom grazing. The experiments soon expanded to include areas reserved for deferredgrazing. In a meeting at the end of the rains, the pastoralists assessed vegetation needsand availability and decided whether and when to open up the protected areas. Atsubsequent twice-yearly meetings, they drew lessons from experience and adjusted themanagement regime, e.g. by changing the size of the reserved areas, the period ofreservation or the way in which fines were imposed on herders who did not comply. Thepastoralists took the lead in this action research in local-level NRM, with governmentagents and consultants providing support where needed.

Source: Marty (1985), Marty (pers. comm. 1994)

In Burkina Faso, the GTZ-supported Projet Sahel Burkinabé (PSB)

facilitated multi-stakeholder workshops following bilateral discussions byproject staff with different user groups. Settled and semi-settled agro-pastoralists set out rules for land use, e.g. for cropping, grazing, clearing

and haymaking, which are overseen by a local management group(“cadre de concertation”). This group informs transhumant herders


about the regulations. PSB helped the producers set up a system tomonitor the extent to which the rules are followed and what impact this

has. It supplements these observations with its own system of ecologi-cal monitoring. At each site, the local management group, technical ser-vices and administrators agreed on indicators, observation sites, times

and methods of assessment, and responsibilities for monitoring. Themanagement groups observe the degree of compliance by local andtranshumant people in respecting dates of opening and closing grazing

areas, controlling animals at given times of the year, obtaining permis-sion to graze crop residues or cut hay etc. They measure the impact ofthe local regulations according to, e.g., number of resource-use conflicts

registered, degree of siltation of ponds and changes in vegetation, e.g.cutting of shrubs and grasses and extent of regeneration (Kiema 2000).

In other cases, an interventionist mode comes through in the reports. A

project in Niger “introduced” deferred grazing in the wet season(Lycklama à Nijeholt et al 2001). In order to be able to continue usingthe grazing resources, the agropastoralists in the area must agree on a

plan and must monitor vegetation to decide where to go next, whethernon-resident pastoralists may use part of the range, when to close partof the range from grazing etc. The report fails to provide details about

how this is done, who makes the decisions and on what basis decisionsare revised.

In those cases where participatory approaches to NRM in pastoral de-

velopment projects were vigorously pursued, it became evident that itwas more important for the project staff to have skills in facilitating thenegotiation of interests (e.g. in negotiating the indicators and monitoring

procedures) and skills in institutional development than to have techni-cal expertise in pasture management. This came through clearly, forexample, in a programme for weed control in grasslands in New Zea-

land (Bosch et al 1996). As the participatory process continued and be-ame more intensive and encompassing, the technical issue was totallysuperseded by issues of community development.

This comes through clearly also in the reports on participatory evalua-tions in Somaliland (ActionAid-Somaliland 1995, 1999). Here, the local


people chose to focus on water development activities, and developed arange of indicators (which differed slightly in different villages) for as-

sessing quality, quantity and reliability of water supply. Their assess-ment revealed positive impacts of water development, such as betternutritional status of children, as well as negative impacts, such as an

increase of malaria around a certain type of waterpoint. It is evident fromthe time and thought invested in preparing and documenting andassessing their experiences with these participatory evaluations that an

important objective was to contribute to institutional development.

Indigenous indicators. Pasture being the basis for pastoralism, we hadexpected to find much more documentation on PM&E of grazing

resources. Using their own indicators of pasture type and quality,livestock-keepers decide whether or not they will go (or send theiranimals) on transhumance or will bring in feed from elsewhere. Studies

of “grassroots” indicators compiled in Hambly and Angura (1996)include mention of how pastoralists recognise range degradation. In theday-to-day management of range resources, pastoralists’ monitoring

practices are reportedly much the same as in scientific rangemanagement: they monitor vegetation cover and yield, greenness ofplants, vegetation composition, occurrence of wildlife, and indicator

plants for degradation (Niamir 1990). This would appear to be an idealsituation for PM&E of grazing resources.

However, pastoralists do not monitor vegetation, water or soil becausethey are primarily interested in these resources but rather because theyare interested in how their animals and their families fare from these

resources. Therefore, changes in the state of natural resources aremore likely to be monitored through changes in the condition (health,productivity, well-being) of their animals. For this reason, indicators

associated with their animals (e.g. milk yield, energy levels, sleekness ofskin) are likely to be more important to monitor than, e.g. vegetation.Moreover, such indicators are easier to monitor especially by mobile

pastoralists, because they stay with the animals rather than with thevegetation at a particular site. Ultimately, they will be concerned with thewell-being of their families in social, economic and cultural terms. Here,

indicators become even “fuzzier” than in environmental monitoring.


Most studies of “grassroots” indicators tended to remain at the level of

environmental indicators and led, at best, to their incorporation into ex-ternally managed monitoring systems. Involvement of the local people incollecting the data was intended to reduce costs and time demands

(e.g. Krugmann 1996). Some of the work on identifying local indicatorshas given scientists and project staff good opportunities to gain a betterunderstanding of the livestock-keeping systems and of local perceptions

(e.g. Gardner et al 1997). Thus, the search for and use of local indica-tors can strengthen the M&E system of the scientists, projects or otheragencies. However, our literature search suggests that the opportunity

is seldom seized to develop truly participatory systems that allow thelocal people to benefit from the scientific monitoring to the same extentas the scientific monitoring benefits from the indigenous monitoring.

2.3 PM&E of local institutions and social relations in NRM

In NRM, institutional and social development aspects deserve as much,if not more, attention than technical aspects, as management is done bypeople. PM&E of socio-organisational capacity for managing the natural

resources, for collaborating and for resolving conflicts, is a tool towardsstrengthening this capacity. It consists of monitoring group processesand is often introduced by a project in order to integrate otherwise

marginalised groups (e.g. women, mobile pastoralists) into localdecision-making structures. It is designed to increase the expressionand widespread understanding of the needs of different user groups.

Local environmental monitoring is closely linked to the strengthening ofthe social organisation of managing the resources, particularly common-property resources used by several families or even ethnic groups. As

Vernooy (1999) points out with regard to environmental monitoring inmicro-watersheds:

Local-level monitoring of resource use is required to ensure compli-ance and regulation. To achieve better resource management prac-tices through cooperative action, rules and sanction, it is important thatlocal people and those cooperating with them have a good under-standing of resource dynamics, e.g. soil dynamics, nutrient flows, water


cycles. Resource assessment and resource-use monitoring are there-fore key activities in any effort to improve management practices andregulatory arrangements. Monitoring will also help to raise awarenessamong local decision-makers about the interdependence of resourcesand, if carried out collectively, can easily impart skills and credibility andcreate a sense of ownership and confidence.

Box 2: Towards self-evaluation in pastoral resource management in Mali

Working with Tuareg in Mali, ACORD designed a self-evaluation approach based on theGRAAP method. Project teams collect information on the conditions of a group andprepare a baseline "fiche". Subgroups divided according to age and sex discuss theirproblems, present their results to each other and agree on activities to start. These areoutlined in a "fiche action". The group identifies the support it needs, makes a contract tothis effect with ACORD and identifies social, economic, technical and institutional ind-cators for evaluating each activity. Working with subgroups permits the views of mar-ginalised groups, e.g. women, to be heard, and reveals differences in aims and criteria forsuccess. The local criteria are combined with ACORD's own criteria to form an overallevaluation framework in a "fiche de suivi". Upon completion of an activity, the group andACORD evaluate it according to the agreed indicators. The "fiches " provide a frameworkfor data collection to assist the process of monitoring, evaluation and re-planning.

Considerable time of staff well trained in animation techniques is required forthis approach. Civil unrest in the project area in 1991 prevented ACORD staff from givingintensive support to this process. As field visits became impossible, pastoralists began tosend oral or written messages to staff at ACORD bases. The evaluation and planningactivities were then shifted to intercommunity meetings held at ACORD bases, precededand followed by meetings in each community organised by local representatives. Theprinciple of subgroups and plenary meetings was retained in the intercommunity meetings.The most common monitoring tool actually used by the groups themselves is a simplenotebook. For example, a management committee for livestock reconstitution has anotebook showing the cost, number and species of animals bought, to whom they wereloaned, and how much of the loan has been repaid.

Sources: Roche (1991), Capezzuoli (1999)

Local management committees. The documentation on PM&E of localinstitutions deals mainly with management committees made up ofmembers of a village or a seemingly homogenous group of resourceusers. It is designed as participatory (including both project staff and lo-cal beneficiaries) during a phase of external support – i.e. monitoringand evaluating organisational development while a management com-mittee is being built up – but with a view to establishing an autonomousprocess of self-evaluation by the local organisation. An example is thework in Mali by ACORD, a UK-based NGO (see Box 2). Also theACORD-supported work among Beja pastoralists in the Red Sea Hills of


the Sudan involves building the capacities of local managementcommittees by facilitating their self-evaluation (Waters-Bayer et al 1998,Plastow & Pantuliano 2001).

NRM by several user groups. Since pastoralists often use resourcesfor only part of the year, they must coordinate with other groups, e.g. ne-

gotiate with crop farmers for land use (Marty 1993). Later in the 1990s,attempts were made to facilitate the formation of multi-stakeholder plat-forms that include pastoralists for conflict management and coordinated

action in NRM (e.g. Banzhaf et al 2000, Fitter et al 2001, Vogt & Vogt2000). These involve some form of PM&E of both natural resources andsocial relations in order to create a better awareness and understanding

of the perspectives of the different stakeholder groups and to establish abetter basis for making joint decisions. The reports on these initiativesstress what the participatory processes should achieve and are written

from the perspective of the supporting projects (see Box 3). It is difficultto judge how well these reflect the perspectives of the local people.

Although M&E by these multi-stakeholder platforms is mentioned in the

reports, few or no details are given about what is actually monitored andevaluated and how this is done. One exception is the report by Kiema(2000) on monitoring the impact of local regulations for resource use

established by management groups composed of settled and semi-settled pastoralists in northern Burkina Faso.

The participatory management of a territory or set of natural resources

by two or more stakeholder groups is well described by Borrini-Feyerabend et al (2000). Here, the emphasis is on facilitating a platformfor negotiating, defining and guaranteeing among themselves a fair way

of sharing management functions, entitlements and responsibilities.Great importance is given to recognising differences between andamong stakeholder groups in their values, interests and concerns. The

three major phases of facilitating participatory management arepreparation, negotiation and learning-by-doing. This third phase refersto implementing, monitoring, evaluating and reviewing the agreements

made. Here, PM&E is inseparable from implementation in NRM.


Box 3: Reaching consensus through a multi-stakeholder platform for NRM

The Projet Sahel Burkinabé (PSB-GTZ), a natural resource management projectsupported by GTZ in the Sahel region of northern Burkina Faso, facilitated a processleading from conflict to consensus in NRM. Through a series of workshops with peoplefrom all local user groups, the project stimulated the formation of fairly informal multi-stakeholder platforms (consultative committees) including also agropastoralists fromnearby villages and transhumant pastoralists from further away. These workshopsinvolved reflection on how the groups were interacting in using and managing the land andwater resources. The project offered tools for situation analysis and self-evaluation as andwhen they were needed. PRA tools such as maps, historical matrices and Venn diagramsproved useful for visualising the changing condition of the natural resources, currentmanagement of vegetation and water, who is involved in the decision-making, and whatcould be improved.

The PSB staff found that it is not enough simply to use some “participatorytools”. Rather, the entire approach to land-use planning had to be shifted from drawing upfixed plans on paper to facilitating a process of building local institutions for negotiatingmodes of resource management, monitoring the effectiveness of the management and re-adjusting plans as the need arises. The regulations for resource use are meant to avoidconflicts between user groups and between these and the government administration. Inthe PM&E, the question of greatest concern to the participants is the extent to which themutually agreed rules of behaviour are actually being followed. The monitoring ofvegetation changes according to indicators identified by the resource users is meant toshow the impact of following the rules. Part of the process of local institutionaldevelopment is the participatory monitoring of how the multi-stakeholder platform isfunctioning in managing the resources.

Sources: Soura et al (1998), Banzhaf et al (2000), Kiema (2000)

In some industrialised countries, the realisation that the rangelandsserve not only for grazing but also for recreation, tourism, mining, hunt-ing, cultural activities and conserving biodiversity led to the building of

coalitions of different land users in joint monitoring and management,such as the Landcare movement in Australia (Campbell 1994). Also inNew Zealand, Bosch et al (1996) report on a decision-support system

that integrates local monitoring by different user-groups as a basis foradaptive management of the grasslands. The process is regarded as acontinuous large-scale ecological “experiment” that gradually expands

the knowledge base available for deciding about land use. Here, PM&Eis central to a multi-stakeholder information and learning system.

Marketing. An institution in which by far the majority of pastoral peoples

are involved is the market. Information about market conditions, aboveall, the price ratio between cereals and livestock products, is particularly


important for pastoralists during periods of drought. It was thereforesurprising that searches in the Internet and the more conventional

literature yielded neither cases of participatory monitoring of markets forlivestock and grain nor PM&E of marketing systems. Pastoral groupsundoubtedly have informal means of gaining market information, often

complaining that traders take an unfair share and pay them too little(e.g. Kerven 1992). However, no evidence was found of efforts tocomplement or strengthen these through participatory research in

exploring market channels or in PM&E to improve pastoral informationsystems. Governments and formal marketing organisations maintaintheir own market monitoring systems, but little of this information seems

to reach pastoralists.2 Project plans often contain objectives of makingmarket information more readily available, but the success stories arenot reported. The reasons for this may warrant investigation, so that

energies can be directed along more promising paths.

Veterinary services. Pastoralists are often interested in developinginstitutions in the realm of animal health care. Several pastoral

development projects have tried to build up capacities of community-based animal health workers (CAHWs, “barefoot vets”, “paravets”) andto improve the supply of veterinary drugs. Many projects taking a

participatory approach favour community-operated services, butparticipatory evaluation involving pastoralists in Somaliland revealedthat channelling supplies through privately-operated enterprises (village

general stores or small drug shops) better satisfied the needs oflivestock-keepers to have veterinary supplies available when needed(ActionAid-Somaliland 1999). Community-operated shops have difficul-

ties in recovering funds, especially in countries where the rate ofinflation is high. Whereas an intervention project might like to measurelevels of community participation in the activities it is supporting, the

pastoralists may be more interested in measuring indicators such asreliability of drug supply and access to services.

2 This phenomenon is not restricted to developing countries. In a participatory researchproject in Australia, wool producers were surprised to find out that there are possiblealternatives to the official auction system, and that they could obtain better prices throughdirect marketing to wool processors and could receive their money more quickly (Ison &Russell 2000).


In a review of experiences with CAHWs in Somali regions of Africa,Catley (1999a) found that, where government regulation was absent or

weak, monitoring by the pastoralists proved more effective than externalmonitoring of the CAHWs. The pastoral communities who select andprovide incentives for the CAHWs have a clear stake in the services,

and therefore monitor CAHW behaviour and activities in their own way.News of ineffective treatment travels quickly. If CAHWs provide poorservices, they soon become redundant.

Similarly, the GTZ-supported Central Rangeland Development Project(CRDP), which operated from 1982 to 1989 in Somalia, worked with No-madic Animal Health Auxiliaries (NAHAs) selected together with Range

and Livestock Associations in traditional Somali grazing reserves. Animportant task of the associations was to monitor the performance oftheir NAHAs (Baumann 1993). Having built up a close relationship with

the nomadic herders, the CRDP was able to establish an “early warningsystem” for outbreaks of disease or other serious problems in animalhealth and production. “The NAHA system was the first structured

primary animal health care system under African pastoral conditionswhich did not limit auxiliaries to giving vaccinations or operatingveterinary drug dispensaries, but which focused on their usefulness in

multi-linked, epidemiological disease surveillance” (Zessin et al 1993).

2.4 PM&E of intervention projects

With increasing awareness among project planners that development iscomplex and unpredictable and that the same approach can lead to

different outcomes in different settings, a stronger process orientation isbeing taken by some development projects. This requires a goodsystem of obtaining and analysing information on experience in the

course of implementation so that the project can recognise weaknesses,adapt methods, correct course and respond more quickly to unexpectedevents (Mosse et al 1998).

Also local needs within the community are changing over time. If NRMprojects are to respond to these changes, participatory evaluativeprocesses need to be set in motion to allow for ongoing learning-by-


doing and adjustment. The experience in New Zealand shows that local-level research and monitoring to improve NRM can also play an

important role in informing policymaking at higher levels and thuscreating a better policy environment for local-level resourcemanagement (Allen 1997).

Monitoring and evaluating an intervention project – especially one thatclaims to be operating in a participatory mode – is not simply a matter oflooking at project activities. A close look must also be taken at the

relationship between the project and its partners, including the“beneficiaries”. We did not find examples of pastoralists’ participation inmonitoring the process of an intervention project. However, in a project

in Uganda concerned with bufferzone management around a nationalpark, a technique called the Ground Relationship Map is used to monitorchanges in the relationship between park officials and local people and

to find out reasons for these changes; this is intended to improve jointmanagement of the park resources (Wild & Mutebi 1996).

Some cases are documented of pastoralists’ participation in evaluating

the outcome and impact of intervention projects, e.g. by ActionAid inSomaliland (1995, 1999), Waters-Bayer et al (1998) in Eastern Sudanand ITDG East Africa (1999) in Kenya. The approaches taken in these

participatory evaluations are described in some detail in these reports.In the Eastern Sudan case, the implementing agency (ACORD)commissioned a documentation and evaluation of the actual evaluation

process (Pantuliano 1998) and an analysis of the participatoryevaluation is included in Harnmeijer et al (1999).

Reckers (1997) looked into the relationship between pastoralists and

projects in a part of Kenya where a UNDP-supported project was oper-ating. She sought to find out how the local people perceived this andother projects. A typical dialogue was: Project staff: “Do you know where

Project X comes from?” Local people: “We don’t know, but they musthave plenty of money.” Staff: “Do you know why the project is here?”Locals: “No, but perhaps they think we have a problem” (Reckers 1995).

She argues that PM&E of project structures and performance could help


the partners understand each other better, avoid unrealistic expecta-tions and disappointments, and make project success more likely.

Misunderstandings regarding mandate and capacities of services andadministrations are by no means restricted to developing countries.Sheep farmers in Australia who visited the Wool Marketing Board and

the headquarters of the agricultural services for the first timeexperienced an “eye-opener”. Beforehand, the farmers had tended tocomplain about “them”, but were surprised to find that the people they

met were open and reasonable – in Australian terms, “nice blokes” –and that there was more basis for communication and collaboration thanthey had first assumed (Ison & Russell 2000). Participatory evaluation of

projects and services by producers, project staff and other partnerorganisations can contribute to a better mutual understanding of theperspectives of “them” and “us”, of “outsiders” and “insiders”. Moreover,

it makes the project or service more transparent and more accountable.

There is scope for fruitful linkages between internal PM&E by a projectand its local partners and external evaluation. An externally-facilitated

participatory evaluation can precipitate or strengthen an internal PM&Esystem (e.g. Plastow & Pantuliano 2001). Moreover, once a system ofPM&E is functioning properly, external evaluation can have the role of

examining how well the system helps the project and its partners meettheir objectives and what lapses in the PM&E system may have affectedproject achievements. External evaluators can highlight aspects either

taken for granted or ignored by the PM&E system (Atampugre 1995).

When intervention projects strive for participation of the local people inproject M&E, the question must be posed: who should and would want

to participate in monitoring and evaluating what? Regular auditing of theproject finances may not be an appropriate focus of PM&E. Financial re-lationships with a donor that wants a particular (and often complicated)

format for financial monitoring may best be left to senior project staff, theaccountant and the donor’s auditor. On the other hand, it could be ar-gued that local resource users have a right to know the division of funds

for different project components and the justification for this. This couldbe examined during periodic evaluations. In contrast, if a project is sup-


porting the establishment of a paravet service or a cooperative shop forlivestock inputs, the financial monitoring should clearly be done jointly

by local people and the project, as this activity helps to strengthen localcapacities to continue the enterprise after project support has ended.

The question as to who should be involved in monitoring what can beworked out with current beneficiaries of a project. However, a widerparticipatory evaluation would have to consider also those who are not

directly “targeted” by the project (see Section 3.3).

2.5 PM&E in participatory experimentation

Most examples of PM&E in experimentation by pastoralists are in therealm of NRM as a large-scale experiment (e.g. Bosch et al 1996; Gentil

& Marty 1979), trying out a new management technique or system ofregulating access to resources and comparing the situation before andafter the change. Examples of experimentation in collaboration with

livestock-keeping crop farmers are more frequent, but the interests ofthe science partners usually dominate in the M&E. A good example ofdifferences in monitoring interests between scientists and herders

comes from India (see Box 4). The numerous guides and overviews thathave been produced on farmer participatory research include sectionson PM&E that would apply equally well to research in livestock-keeping

(e.g. Ashby 1990, van Veldhuizen et al 1997, Warren 1998). A guidefocused on participatory experimentation involving livestock-keepershas been produced by Conroy (2001).

The critical point in PM&E of participatory experiments is the design ofthe PM&E system. Answers to the following types of questions need tobe negotiated between the livestock-keepers and the scientists:

• What is the objective of the experiment? What do we want to learnfrom it?

• What information do we need in order to be able to learn this?

• What key indicators will convey this information to us?

• How and when in the production cycle can these indicators beobserved or measured, and by whom?


• Who will keep the records of which observations and measure-ments, and how will these records kept?

• Who will analyse which data, and how and when?

• How will the results be shared between us and with other interested

parties?

Box 4: Differences in monitoring interests between scientists and herders

In a village in Gujarat State, herders identified the lack of a water trough near thecommunal grazing area as a constraint to milk production, arguing that they had to returnto the village to water the animals. A research project that had been established toinvestigate possibilities to improve forage availability decided, after a project appraisal anda cost/benefit analysis, to support the locally proposed project, which cost about $US 300.The agreement was that the project would pay for the building materials and the herderswould provide labour and set up a management committee. The project staff pushedthrough a data-intensive monitoring system, which included measuring every two weeksthe routes and distances covered by the herders, the daily activities of the animals(walking, grazing etc), milk offtake of 12 cows and 12 goat does and a monthly groupmeeting to monitor progress. The herders were not particularly interested in the monitoringdata and the research team was slow in analysing the data. With time, the projectrecognised that the monitoring exercise was totally out of dimension and that the herderscould well observe the impact without any formalised monitoring.

Source: Conroy & Rangnekar (1999)

As revealed by the Indian case, it is also critical to review the efficiencyand value of the originally designed PM&E system and revise itaccordingly.

In the reports on actual monitoring by livestock-keepers, the mostcommon approach is a series of meetings to observe changes together,e.g. within groups of research farmers or through farmer-to-farmer

monitoring visits. Participatory evaluation sessions at the end of a trialphase often take the form of field days, focus-group meetings ortravelling seminars to the different trial sites (e.g. Mellis et al 1999;

Defoer et al 1996).

Conroy (2001) reports that, among illiterate goat-keepers in India,monitoring forms based in symbols rather than words were tried, but the

goat-keepers saw no need to quantify or record changes in theiranimals. They relied on their observations and recall. Because they


made these observations every day, whereas the formal researcherswere often delayed in analysing the monitoring data that had been

collected by field staff and entered into computers, the researchers werenot always aware of important trends and could not make the most ofjoint evaluation meetings with the goat-keepers to investigate issues.

The lesson derived from this experience was to encourage the field staffto do simple analyses using calculators and to convert the data into avisualised form.

The same indicators may be monitored for PM&E of natural resourcesand for PM&E in participatory experimentation, but the difference is inthe time period and the objective of the monitoring. Environmental

monitoring consists of observations over a long term to discern trends,e.g. in the condition of vegetation or water, whereas PM&E inparticipatory experimentation is limited in time (for the length of the

experiment) and is focused on a specific objective related to thehypothesis of the experiment, e.g. to observe the influence of atreatment on a grazing area. In both types of monitoring, pastoralists are

likely to give prime importance to indicators related to animals, herdsand households, rather than to indicators related to the naturalresources.


3. ASSESSMENT OF MAIN APPROACHES AND

METHODS USED

Here we will start by referring to some tools that have proved useful inPM&E with pastoralists. However, much more important than the tools is

the approach that gives the context for their application. Therefore,Section 3.2 describes some strengths of promising approaches toenhance participatory learning about process and impact in NRM.

Section 3.3 draws attention to some of the major issues and dangers inapplying participatory approaches in M&E and reveals the traps intowhich many attempts to introduce PM&E seem to have fallen.

3.1 Some useful tools

Tools that have been applied in PM&E with pastoralists include varioustypes of meetings and small workshops involving direct observation of

phenomena in the field; comparing series of seasonal calendars ormaps; before-and-after matrices; impact diagrams; and rankingmethods, often using techniques of proportional piling. Many of these

tools are similar to those used in PM&E of NRM programmes, such asin watershed management (Shah et al 1991). There have been mixedexperiences with using Venn diagrams to explore socio-organisational

change (e.g. Waters-Bayer et al 1998, Catley 1999b).

The tools that have reportedly proved to be most useful (or, at least, aremost popular) in PM&E of natural resources are described briefly below.

• Mapping. Comparing maps made by resource users at differentpoints in time allows monitoring of activities and assessment of en-vironmental impact. The maps facilitate group assessment, as the

coverage of different activities can be visualised and the informationcan be shared by all present. Good experience has been made withmaps in PM&E of watershed management in India (Shah et al 1991)

and fire management by animal-keepers in Guinea (Tachez 1995).One variation on this theme is the interpretation of aerial photo-graphs, which the PSB in Burkina Faso found useful for identifying

resources and areas for different types of use. Comparing maps


depicting past and present allowed analysis of change in resourceuse and access. This led into discussion of current problems and

conflicts. In some cases, the aerial photographs were firstinterpreted separately by settled and transhumant pastoralists andthen discussed jointly (Hermann Grell, pers. comm. 2002).

• Impact diagrams. A line drawing by resource users of the flow ofeffects of change can serve as a basis for periodic joint analysis.The drawing can take the form of a tree, showing effects identified

by local people, such as availability of forage resources, quality ofrangeland, incidence of disease, relative numbers of different animalspecies, sources and levels of income, or expenditures. Culturally

appropriate signs or colours can be used to depict positive ornegative trends in these effects. Impact diagrams can also take theform of a series of seasonal calendars depicting periods before and

after the introduction of an innovation such as a dam, borehole,grazing reserve or improved pasture. Maps are useful for comparingecological conditions and resource use over time. Calendars are

more useful for showing changes in the seasonal distribution ofactivities or of resource availability. With Tuareg herders in Mali,ACORD used impact diagrams to bring out local perceptions of the

effects of an irrigated area (Capezzuoli 1994).

• Proportional piling. With this very easy and quick tool, people canshow their perceptions of relative proportions by placing local

materials such as stones or beans in piles of different sizes. Afacilitator then stimulates discussion around reasons for differencesand, when done for different periods, reasons for changes in

proportions over time. Pastoralists have worked with this tool, forexample, in Somaliland and Uganda (Catley 1996, 1999b, 1999c),Mongolia (Cullis 1994) and Sudan (Waters-Bayer et al 1998).

• Resource flow diagram. This depicts the flow of nutrients and/orother inputs into a production unit or area and between componentsof it. Such diagrams have been used by ICLARM (International

Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management) in experimentingwith changes in resource-use systems. By drawing the diagrams,


the producers and scientists make a joint inventory of availableresources. The producers then discuss and seek alternative ways of

using the resources. Changes in resource use resulting from localexperimentation are monitored over time in a series of diagrams. InMalawi, farmers drew bio-resource and cash flows before and after

integrating fishponds into their farms. Comparison of the drawingsallowed them and scientists to monitor change and supportedproducer decision-making in resource management (Lightfoot &

Noble 1993). Similarly, farmers working with Defoer et al (1996) inMali used their own drawings of resource flows (feed sources foranimals, crop residue use, manure application to cropland etc) to

plan and monitor their experiments.

• Historical matrices show the relative importance of different activi-ties at different points in time over several years or even decades.

These are useful for monitoring change and as a basis for discuss-ing the causes and consequences of change, e.g. after a change inaccess rights to post-harvest grazing (Schoonmaker Freudenberger

K & M 1994). Historical matrices were also used in Mongolia byCooper & Gelezhamstin (1994) to help the people analyse changesin seasonal consumption patterns after economic liberation.

• Oral testimony is another means of comparing strategies, activitiesand conditions before and after development interventions in termsof local subjective experience. Inclusion of oral accounts in an eval-

uation report can introduce a wider dimension and draw attention tounexpected ways in which interventions have changed the lives ofthe local people (Slim & Thompson 1993). Perhaps the greatest

impact of an oral-testimony approach to evaluation is that it changeshow the development workers doing the interviews see the localpeople (Cross & Barker 1998). In addition to oral testimony in

response to interviewers’ questions, local poetry and song are tradi-tional ways in which changes can be expressed. An analysis of clanpoetry in pastoral Somalia was used to trace trends in conflicts

(Rirash 1993, cited in Hussein 1998). However, this covered aperiod of several decades; the same tool may not be so effective inmonitoring changes over the short periods of most pastoral projects.


• Participatory video. Within a DFID-funded project on “Impacts ofPrivatisation on Range and Livestock Management in Semi-Arid

Central Asia”, the Turkmenistan Participatory Video Project workedwith men, women and children to let them express their views. Thevideo catalysed community action and the community used it for

policy lobbying. A follow-up project uses participatory video todocument livestock-keepers’ perspectives on the changes they areexperiencing and the impacts these changes are having on their

patterns of resource use. This form of monitoring is meant to openup communication channels between scientists, herders andpolicymakers (Lunch et al 2000). Similarly, Maasai pastoralists in

northern Tanzania, with the support of the Forest, Trees and PeopleProgramme (FTPP) and the International Institute for Environmentand Development (IIED), used video to express local perspectives

on natural resource management, specifically to make known theMaasai’s evaluation of the planning process for the NgorongoroConservation Area (Taylor & Johansson 1996).

With respect to PM&E of local institutions of NRM, many of the sametools applied in other processes of local organisational development areapplicable equally well among pastoralists. For example, the local

management committees among the Beja in Eastern Sudan useddepictions of waxing and waning moons to assess their functioning andconsider how to improve this (Waters-Bayer et al 1998). The “moons

exercise” had been adapted from the community self-assessmenttechnique described by Uphoff (1991).

Another tool for PM&E of local institutions and of intervention projects is

the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis,the use of which is documented among pastoralists in southern Sudan(Catley 1999c), as well as in Eastern Sudan (Waters-Bayer et al 1998),

Somaliland (Catley 1999b) and Morocco (Acherkouk et al 1995). Itproved to be an effective way of structuring self-evaluation discussions.

Records in PM&E by pastoralists – whether in NRM, local institutional

development, intervention projects or participatory experiments – aremost commonly kept in pictorial form, often using visualisation tools


such as maps or flow diagrams. Among the Gabra and Turkanapastoralists in Kenya, ITDG East Africa (1999) developed a system for

monitoring project activities based on records kept by local monitorsamong the pastoralists. To record changes toward better or worseconditions, the herders used colour codes with cultural significance for

good or bad, or drew numbers of legs on an animal to denote relativewell-being and flexibility of movement.

The extent to which written records are kept depends on levels of

literacy and on the degree of trust that pastoralists are prepared to put inliterate people. ACORD reported that monitoring notebooks were keptby members of local management committees, e.g. for herd

reconstruction, and that the community demanded a shift from visual towritten records for assessment and planning (Capezuolli 1994). Incontrast, working with the Beja in Eastern Sudan, Plastow and

Pantuliano (2001) noted problems when only one adult in thecommunity (the teacher) is literate, and found that the use of symbolsled to greater community understanding and control of what was

happening. (This was a case of monitoring purchases and sales in acooperative shop.) It is clear that any recording system must beassessed by the participants and changed if necessary.

Good experience has been made in using village logbooks and charts inthe local language in community-based M&E in NRM in Kenya andMadagascar (Ford et al 1998), but this was in farming villages where

there was some level of literacy. SARDEP, the GTZ-supported project incommunal areas of Namibia, encourages livestock-keepers to keep fileswith minutes of meetings, including an attendance list and a short

protocol of what was discussed and decided. These protocols are usedto check which decisions were followed by actions (Fitter et al 2001).

As PM&E in NRM is meant to be a tool of communication between

partners with the aim of stimulating improvement in managing theresources, an important component of the process is the presentation ofresults and scrutiny by a wider audience of people who can take action.

Results can be presented in drawings, maps, graphs, charts,photographs, posters, audio-tapes, drama, poetry, songs and reports.


Video films, such as those produced in Turkmenistan (Lunch et al

2000), have been used in stimulating discussion and action at local

level, as well as to convey local assessments to policymakers at higherlevels. However, the funds, equipment and skills needed to presentPM&E results in this way are not reported.

3.2 Opportunities for enhancing participatory learning

The approaches to PM&E introduced by projects and other outsideagencies3 come from two directions:

1. Starting with scientific concepts: the outside agency brings in itsown concept of M&E, proposed indicators, modes of measurement(almost exclusively quantitative) and forms of recording and

reporting, and adapts these in interaction with local people. Thisapproach is most commonly taken by environmental researchprojects that wish to bring in local perspectives, and by development

projects that wish to help local people understand and use morescientific methods for assessing the environment. The joint testingof the externally conceived system and reflection on the process

and outcome leads to adaptation, usually simplification, of thescientific methods.

2. Starting with the local people’s informal practices of M&E ,

including their indicators of change, trying to understand/validatethese practices and indicators, and seeking ways to combine localcapacities and external capacities for M&E. This approach is more

commonly taken by NGOs that are pursuing aims going far beyondenvironmental monitoring. They seek to strengthen self-helpcapacities and improve the local basis for decision-making, often in

ways that include otherwise marginalised or overlooked groups.

The second approach was taken, for example, by ACORD in Mali inmonitoring progress in regenerating the riverine grass bourgou

(Echinochloa stagnina). Both men and women pastoralists were

3 We found no examples in which pastoralists took the initiative and sought externalcollaboration to develop PM&E approaches to improve their own informal M&E practices.


included in the process of identifying indicators. The men’s mainindicator was the amount of milk available to drink, whereas the women

stated that they would judge the success of the activity according to theamount of “kundou” (a sweet drink made from the grass) that theirchildren could drink. They could make kundou only when there was

enough bourgou to satisfy the animals’ needs. This was a single andsimple indicator that both the pastoralists and the project staff could useto monitor the project (Roche 1991).

This approach starts with dialogue rather than preconceived M&Esystems and lists of possible indicators. The few promising cases ofPM&E with pastoralists indicate some of the entry points or strengths

that can be built upon to engage in mutual learning about process andimpact in NRM. Some lessons can be drawn from these cases.

Indigenous M&E. In comparison with other natural resource users,

mobile pastoralists probably have a stronger indigenous system ofassessing environmental conditions, to be able to judge when andwhere to move with their herds. Indicators may include low water tables

in wells, low forage supply, declining productivity of animals (e.g.unusually low milk yield for the season). Much more attention needs tobe given to understanding existing systems of monitoring and

information exchange by pastoralists and how these can bestrengthened through PM&E.

If a project deals with issues important to pastoralists, they will make

their own informal evaluation, individually and during discussions amongthemselves, whether or not they are formally involved in the project’sM&E system. Many of the tools of visualisation, such as mapping,

diagramming, matrices, drawings and proportional piling, help stimulateand structure discussions between project staff and pastoralists aboutlocal concepts and indicators implicitly used in their informal evaluation.

The visual tools also help in documenting the discussions. Starting upsuch semi-structured discussions and documenting the outcome willinitially be the role of project staff, at the same time as they encourage

pastoral organisations to develop appropriate ways to keep track of theirown progress.


With respect to environmental monitoring, identification of local indica-tors can serve as a starting point to encourage pastoralists to set up

their own, independent, more systematic monitoring system. It is likelythat, in most cases, they will be satisfied with their informal M&E and willnot, at least initially, see any need for more systematisation or for written

or pictorial recording. In such cases, building a project-managed M&Esystem on local indicators can lead to a more participatory system if theresults of the project’s monitoring are periodically fed back to the

pastoralists in an understandable form. They can then discuss theirinterpretation and that of the project and come to their own judgementwhether they would benefit from more systematic PM&E.

Iterative participatory evaluations for monitoring. Instead ofrecording data at regular intervals, e.g. every week or month, short butconcentrated participatory evaluations (PEs) – perhaps once every year

or two – can serve the purpose of relatively low-input participatorymonitoring and continual adjustment of plans. Either one large workshopcan be organised involving all project partners, or a series of meetings

with focus groups can be followed by a larger meeting ofrepresentatives of pastoral groups and other organisations and personsinvolved in the project. Change between evaluations can be assessed

using visualisation techniques such as matrices or proportional piling forthe previous and the current situation (e.g. ActionAid-Somaliland 1999).

The local resource users and local project staff will be the best judges of

the appropriate approach to take in iterative PEs for the purpose of jointmonitoring. Repeated PRA exercises imposed by projects are likely toencounter a reaction such as that of the villagers in India, who were so

disappointed that the recommendations from a prior PRA evaluationworkshop had not been acted upon that they scorned any suggestion of"playing games" again with a team wanting to apply PRA methods in a

follow-up evaluation (Devavarum 1994). There should be an agreementamong all partners that the repetition of drawing resource maps, Venndiagrams etc is to be able to compare the present with the previous

situation. For this purpose, it is important that the results of each PRAexercise be documented in ways that are accessible for all participants.


Focused monitoring of short trials as entry to longer-term PM&E.

The review revealed that livestock-keepers were willing and sometimes

even eager to monitor more regularly if they were involved in trials theyhad planned and were implementing themselves, either on their ownaccount or on behalf of a group of interested peers. Livestock-keepers

in Mali who carried out and monitored experiments on the basis ofresource-flow maps found that this way of keeping records motivatedthem to implement a new idea, such as building a fodder storage facility

(Defoer et al 1996). Most people associate M&E with negative connota-tions of external control. It is conceivable that, if livestock-keepers andproject staff experience benefits of joint monitoring in short-term

participatory research, they will be more willing to engage in longer-termPM&E of environmental or livestock condition. This is a hypothesis thatwould have to be tested.

Time-limited PM&E as a contribution to mutual understanding.

Having come across so few examples of PM&E with pastoralists, it isnot at all surprising that we discovered no examples of assessment of

the longer-term impact of engaging pastoralists and project staff inPM&E. This would become evident in, among other things, the degreeto which the pastoralists’ decision-making processes have been

improved, the degree to which the perspectives of others are beingconsidered by different stakeholder groups in their own decision-making, or the degree to which local-level PM&E is contributing to M&E

on higher levels. It may not necessarily be reflected in a continuation ofthe PM&E system as was originally set up with the facilitation of anintervention project. The time-limited experience with more structured

PM&E, during training sessions and during a project phase, cancontribute to changing the attitudes of the participants and increasingtheir capacities to listen and communicate with other actors, even if this

is not within a discernible PM&E system.

3.3 Issues, dangers and traps

One would expect that pastoralists, NGOs and government agencies in

developing countries would share a common interest in monitoring dataon the natural environment at least to provide early-warning systems


and better long-term prediction of drought. Why is it then so difficult tofind well-documented examples of environmental PM&E with pasto-

ralists? We can only speculate on the reasons:

• In many developing countries, pastoral peoples are politically mar-ginalised or poorly understood by policymakers. This can reinforce a

tendency among pastoralists to keep their information to themselvesand not share it with others, especially not with persons whom theyassociate with government authorities.

• Livestock and range management can be strongly affected bylocalised events, including not only drought but also fire, floods, epi-demics and – in some mountainous areas – unexpected snow and

frost. With the exception of droughts and possibly epidemics, thesehazards have a very short warning period, require quick responseand cannot be substantially reduced or avoided through systematic

monitoring.

• Many pastoralists live in remote areas, where communication withother groups is often difficult and sporadic and modern communica-

tion technologies are not available. They had to develop their ownforms of environmental monitoring and, even if they would be willingto share their information, they have few opportunities to do so.

• Some pastoral groups pursue potentially lucrative activities, such astrade or smuggling, which they may not like to be transparent forothers. PM&E systems ideally make data available for both the local

participants and the outside agencies involved, but pastoralists maynot find this to be ideal for them.

• The types of PM&E systems being promoted by outside agencies

are too demanding in terms of time and yield too few data regardedas useful by pastoralists.

• Because they have numerous tasks in the field and office that make

immediate demand on their time and because the PM&E process initself can be both exciting and exhausting, project staff memberswho are heavily engaged in PM&E may give low priority to docu-

menting their experience.


Another reason why there are so few documents on the actual function-ing of PM&E systems may be that many do not function well. Where the

process of developing and improving the PM&E system is well docu-mented (e.g. Plastow & Pantuliano 2001), many of the initial weak-nesses became apparent and appropriate adaptations could be made.

Intervention projects wanting to introduce PM&E systems are oftenunaware of some of the difficult issues and dangers involved and fall

into typical traps. Some are highlighted here:

Ignoring basic questions. It appears that most of the “participatory”

M&E systems are driven by the information needs of external agencies.The most basic questions in M&E are often not answered: Why ismonitoring needed? What should be monitored? By whom? Who wants

the information? How will they get it and use it? The more mobile thelivestock-keepers, the more important becomes the question: What is soimportant to the livestock-keepers that they would be prepared to en-

gage in local processes of change that requires PM&E in order to besuccessful?

Posing such questions helps to make clear who can and should bedoing the M&E and if it can really be participatory. If a project wants toknow how many trees were planted but the pastoralists are not

interested in this information and will not be using it, why should they beinvolved in the monitoring? Much of the information being requested byproject staff or funding bodies or government agencies is of interest

primarily or solely to them, and there is little reason for pastoralists to dothe work of providing this information, unless they can expect othertypes of benefit from doing so (e.g. free veterinary care or better access

to external inputs, at least for as long as the project works in their area).

Especially in these times, as international treaties and conventions relat-

ed to biodiversity, climate change or combating desertification becomeincreasingly important in development cooperation, there may be inter-est in PM&E to measure the impacts. However, it is unlikely that pas-

toralists are going to be concerned with how their pasture managementaffects, e.g., the carbon cycle of the planet, as long as there are no


visible and tangible benefits for them. International conventions are tooabstract to interest pastoralists in PM&E for this sake.

Possible biases. Some of the difficult aspects of involving pastoralistsin environmental monitoring are revealed by experiences with drought

monitoring in Australia. Here, it was in the interest of the pastoralists tohave their area declared as drought-stricken, so that they would gainaccess to significant funding from the federal government (White &

Karssies 1999). In such cases, it is most obvious that the results of localparticipation in monitoring may be somewhat biased. Also in other partsof the world, biases based on personal or local (also ethnic) interests

are likely to occur. If PM&E is meant to improve environmental manage-ment, these biases must be openly addressed.

Biases can also be brought in by the participatory approach itself. In thecase of participatory evaluation of an intervention project, who amongthe local people should be participating? Project activities can have

impacts on both “targeted” and “non-targeted” groups in the projectarea. Involving project staff and project beneficiaries in an evaluationwhich they co-design and co-implement may make it more difficult to

discover the views of non-beneficiaries than if external personsconsulted different local people in a more conventional evaluation(Harnmeijer et al 1999).

Difficulties in choice and interpretation of indicators. Judging pri-marily from experiences in participatory monitoring of NRM projects

concerned with cropping, forestry and/or water, considerable difficultiesare encountered with the selection of indicators. Monitoring needs to bedone on different levels and with different partners, who will have their

own perceptions of reality according to their own worldviews. Indicatorsneed to be clear and appropriate for the people involved at any givenlevel. Even within a stakeholder group, such as mobile pastoralists,

perceptions may differ depending on gender, age or social rank.

For each situation, participants have to identify and agree on indicators;

prepared checklists can merely serve to give some ideas of how certainchanges could be measured. If agreement is to be reached on the


meaning of the indicators, then these have to be understood andaccepted by the different groups involved. If community action is to be

stimulated by observation and interpretation of the indicators, then theseneed to communicate something to the community. Range scientistsmay feel that complex biodiversity indicators or an index combining

several indicators is more accurate in measuring change. However,observation of trends in the abundance of a single plant known locallyas an indicator species may be of more value in communicating with the

resource users and in stimulating change in behaviour and resourcemanagement.

Indicator overload. There are repeated reports of elaborate attempts toset up PM&E systems for NRM, with particular emphasis on drawing uplong lists of indicators, only to discover at the stages of collecting and

analysing the data that the system suffers from indicator overload. Thewarning is repeatedly given that the partners in PM&E should chose andtest only a small number of indicators that give them the essential

information and can be interpreted locally and quickly. Moreover, be-cause the usefulness of indicators may change over time, there must beroom to review and adapt them (Conroy & Rangnekar 1999, MDP 1998,

Guijt 1998).

Power plays. Projects promoting participatory approaches must remain

constantly aware that reconciling interests of multiple stakeholders is ahighly political process. When discussing indicators for sustainability atdifferent levels from global to local, MacGillivray and Zadek (1995) note

that “Community-level indicators are in almost all cases marginalised bykey international and national institutions because they are consideredtechnologically inadequate or cannot be “scaled up” to fit the focus or

way of working of decision-makers. This is not merely a question ofwhich indicators are best for describing a particular process or set ofevents. It is more a matter of who is empowered or disempowered in the

process of selection, development and application”. This same principleapplies in choice of indicators in negotiations at the interface betweenproject and community or between scientists and community or between

different categories of resource users (settled farmers versus mobilepastoralists, men versus women, old versus young etc).


Preoccupation with indicators. The importance given by projects tomeasuring environmental change through PM&E seems to have led to a

preoccupation with indicators. A better and more differentiated picture ofpastoral livelihoods could be reflected in a PM&E system that is not aslave to fixed sets of indicators and takes a more open approach. One

possibility would be to hold a series of reflection sessions on the keythings that have changed since the previous session (Abbot & Guijt1998), relying primarily on verbal presentations and accepting new

types of change that had not be contemplated when collaboration be-gan. This approach is likely to suit communities with a strong oral tradi-tion, as pastoral communities in developing countries generally are. It

can bring different values to a wider debate if the traditional power rela-tions can be made less rigid through appropriate facilitation techniques,such as small groups discussing and reporting to the larger group.

Costs and benefits. Developing a PM&E system requires much timeand funds (see “Acknowledging the cost of participatory monitoring” in

Abbot & Guijt 1998, p73). When considering costs and benefits ofPM&E at project level, it must also be taken into account that PM&E cancontribute to capacity building. However, it must still be assessed

whether the substantial funds that need to be invested in developing aPM&E system bring the expected benefits in terms of capacity building.

Project-internal resistance. Some difficulties in realising PM&E candoubtless be attributed to resistance among personnel of interventionprojects, probably more among administrative than field staff. PM&E

makes administration more complicated and, as all participatory pro-cesses have something to do with the sharing of power, people who areinvolved in power games within their own organisations are not likely to

welcome an approach that deprives them of some of their power. Trulyparticipatory approaches also make public relations to the outside worldmore difficult and can affect the “corporate identity” of a project. It is

therefore not surprising that some people in development circles hopethat participatory approaches will go “out of fashion”. A hesitant beha-viour with respect to power-sharing in participatory planning, monitoring

and evaluation is also not unknown among government officials.


Not only the project and the other intervening agencies but also the localpeople need to assess the costs and benefits of the time and energy,

including emotional transaction costs, that they put into the PM&Eprocess and what it brings them. The results of all partners’ informalassessment of the PM&E process will be reflected in their willingness to

continue. It can be constructive to make the costs and benefits explicit.In so doing, partners may realise that, for example, the interaction inPM&E allowed the participants to become better acquainted with each

other’s perspectives. Or the space for negotiation offered by the PM&Eprocess helped to reduce tensions or conflicts between pastoralists andother groups of resource users. Or it may have intensified conflicts, in

which case it will become obvious that something must be changed inthe process.


4. CREATING FAVOURABLE FRAMEWORK CONDI-TIONS FOR PM&E WITH PASTORALISTS

During the session on “International Perspectives on Rangelands” at theVIth International Rangeland Congress in 1999, major donors such as

the World Bank, the Global Environmental Facility, IFAD, USAID andthe GTZ presented their views on range development (Bayer & Sloane2002). The unanimous opinion was that range development needs to be

decentralised and that there is a strong move towards participatoryapproaches and local empowerment. As already shown in this review,this trend does not seem to extend to PM&E, yet this is an integral part

of successful participatory development.

Preconditions for successful PM&E strongly overlap with those for

participatory development. States and – in the case of bilateral ormultilateral projects – donors need to be committed to decentralisationand prepared to relinquish power to allow decision-making at the local

level. This does not mean that higher levels of decision-making aresuperfluous, but the principle of subsidiarity must prevail: only that whichcannot be managed on a lower level should be taken on by a higher

level. As an example: the day-to-day management of grazing resourcescan best be done on a local level by the resource users, but a legalframework to provide more security for their use needs to be established

on a higher level (district, provincial or national). Similarly, a shop forveterinary drugs can very well be managed by an individual or group atthe level of a pastoral community, whereas declaring quarantine meas-

ures and enforcing them will be beyond the power of a local group ofpastoralists, and state authorities will have to meet their responsibilities(de Haan 1999).

In any case, participatory development should be approached as a pro-cess. It can and should start even if framework conditions are sub-

optimal. During an iterative process of development, the frameworkconditions can gradually be improved (or they may improve in leaps andbounds if, for example, a new law is passed that regulates rights to

natural resources in a better way). This process approach with a view toimproving framework conditions is taken by pastoral development pro-


grammes with a strong component of institutional development, such asSARDEP in Namibia (Fitter et al 2001). Some form of PM&E, as a

mechanism for mutual learning and improved management, is key to aniterative process of development. In other words, although frameworkconditions may not be ideal for applying PM&E in an equitable way,

including all relevant groups, the very process of PM&E should createawareness of weaknesses and constraints in the framework conditionsand increase capacities to address them.

All partners in such a process need to develop capacities to do PM&E.This is equally true for local communities, government administrations

and development projects. Training courses can help to build up thenecessary skills, but cannot replace the “learning-by-doing” process.

In their review of participatory evaluation in non-governmental andinternational projects, Martin and Quinney (1995) found that there wereweak institutional capacities in NGOs and projects to embark on

participatory evaluation. It is likely that merely more courses onparticipatory methods will be of little use unless the institutions involvedallow or even encourage their staff to apply the participatory methods in

their day-to-day work. Some form of post-course on-the-job coachingalso helps. As an increasing number of projects gain experience withparticipatory situation analysis and project planning with pastoralists, the

skills will gradually be developed that can lead into more participatoryforms of M&E.

To be able to be partners in PM&E, communities need to haveappropriate organs that can express their interests, such as a villageassembly, a village development committee, or some other kind of

platform of social actors for negotiating pasture use and resolvingconflicts between individuals or groups. As with organisationaldevelopment in general, PM&E activities should be carried out by

existing institutions, rather than groupings created artificially for thepurpose. In many cases, it may be necessary to invest time in strength-ening local organisational skills, before a well-functioning PM&E system

will be possible. However, encouraging local groups to work out theirown ways of monitoring one or two small activities important to them


can, in itself, contribute to strengthening local organisational capacity.Groups with such initial experience will be better able to assume co-

ownership of more challenging forms of monitoring, such as of environ-mental change (Catley 1999b, Plastow & Pantuliano 2001, ActionAid-Somaliland 1999).

Within donor and implementing agencies, there is a need for institutionalsupport to PM&E from higher levels of management. The interest shown

by the head office in documenting participatory methods provides a pos-itive learning environment. Through evaluation of their own experienceswith PM&E, the ACORD-supported Red Sea Hills Programme in East-

ern Sudan has been able to learn about new participatory approachesand tools and to adapt them to local conditions and available skills(Pantuliano 1998; Plastow & Pantuliano 2001). Higher-level institutional

support includes allowing the projects or local offices the flexibility toadjust their activities depending on what emerges out of the process ofPM&E. This requires a fairly open approach to project planning.

If a project is committed to a participatory and process-oriented ap-proach, then a staff member of relatively high seniority should be in

charge of M&E, for this is the key element in such an approach. Thetasks of this person – possibly with support staff – would include notonly monitoring the activities planned together with the pastoralists and

stimulating self-monitoring by the pastoralists, but also monitoring theinteractions within the project team and between its members and thepastoralists. In other words, project self-criticism of the participatory

planning process should be built into the activities and staffing of theproject. At the same time, the person responsible for M&E should havean "ear on the ground" to ensure that the pastoralists' assessment of

project activities and of interactions with project staff is given strongattention during day-to-day project work. As more responsibilities forproject-supported activities are taken over by the pastoralists them-

selves, organising the monitoring process and documenting the out-comes should become increasingly the task of the pastoralists.


5. CONCLUSIONS

Over two years of seeking documentation, tapping into a wide net ofpersonal contacts, going through literature databases and searching inthe Internet yielded numerous “grey” reports on PM&E training, several

guidebooks and some cases of facilitating multi-stakeholder platformsfor NRM and resolving local conflicts. We found, however, few examplesof implementation of systematic PM&E together with pastoralists or

other livestock-keepers. Given the strong verbal commitment to partici-patory development by virtually all major donors and by many govern-ments in developing countries, this was somewhat of a surprise.

The most likely reasons for this lack of documentation are:

• Under-reporting: PM&E is indeed being practised, but the staff

of neither the development agencies nor the other partnerorganisations has the time to report on and analyse the experi-ence for a wider audience, or the PM&E takes a form that is so

loosely structured that it is difficult to describe;

• Rarity of implementation, possibly because 1) pastoralists inremote areas have to or prefer to manage their affairs them-

selves and are reluctant to share their information; 2) develop-ment agency staff and government officials are not willing torelinquish control; and/or 3) projects, administrations, pastoral

groups and other local institutions do not yet have the capacitiesand motivation to carry out PM&E.

The literature on PM&E and the reports on attempts to develop PM&Esystems in NRM in a more general sense point to some important pre-requisites. The issues to be monitored need to be of real interest to the

partners involved. Indicators need to be simple and capable of commu-nicating something to the people who will be acting upon the results.The recording needs to be in a form that partners can manage. Here it

must be remembered that pastoral communities in developing countrieshave a strong oral tradition, low levels of literacy and little access toinformation and communication technology, with the exception of the

radio.


Only rare cases in the documentation (e.g. ActionAid-Somaliland 1999,Catley 1999c, Kiema 2000, Marty 1985, Plastow & Pantuliano 2001)

give the impression that the pastoralists find the PM&E process suffi-ciently beneficial for themselves that they might continue the systemwith local stakeholder groups, including local services, without external

support. The notable exceptions are quite simple PM&E systems withlow intensity of data collection, using methods of recording and analysisthat depend more on memory and discussion than on written records.

Many of the more data-intensive forms of PM&E are not accepted by

extensive livestock-keepers as a useful way to spend their time. Thisapplies to pastoralists in Australia just as much as to those in Africa.People who live in sparsely populated areas, as drylands tend to be, ap-

preciate the opportunity to discuss with peers. Periodic meetings, duringwhich environmental or socio-economic (e.g. market, organisational,conflict) conditions or project processes and outputs can be discussed

in a semi-structured way seem to be preferable to data-intensive moni-toring, e.g. on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. At such meetings, var-ious visualisation techniques can be useful, particularly before-and-after

matrices, maps, proportional piling, flow and impact diagrams andSWOT charts. The repeated use of such tools in successive workshopsat intervals of several months or a year can form an element of PM&E.

Thus, instead of monitoring and recording frequently and continuously,repeated evaluation workshops could be used to monitor progress.

Indigenous or grassroots indicators, particularly with respect to NRM,could be a good entry point into PM&E. However, where scientists have

studied these, it has been primarily in an extractive way rather than as afirst step towards integrating the grassroots indicators during joint deve-lopment of a PM&E system. Few efforts appear to have been made to

encourage local development agents to identify indigenous indicatorsthemselves, although these are the local actors who are most likely tocontinue a PM&E system with pastoralists.

PM&E is an integral part of local capacity building and institutional de-velopment. It can create a feeling of ownership among all participants ina project or activity. Locally acceptable forms of PM&E can help local

people manage their own affairs better and increase the likelihood that


project-supported activities will continue after the project ends. Some ofthe strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of PM&E are sum-

marised in Table 1. This assessment was made by local staff of a proj-ect working with pastoralists in southern Sudan in semi-structuredPM&E based mainly on the use of PRA tools and group discussions.

Table 1: SWOT analysis of PM&E in a pastoral area

Strengths

• Use of local indicators well understoodby community members

• Easy to use by the community• Encourages frank, open discussion• More open-ended than other methods;

interesting leads can be followed up• Time-efficient• Fun and dynamic• Diversity of opinions become apparent• Decisions for action can arise from

consensus of opinion• Immediate feedback to wider com-

munity• Increases local ownership of informa-

tion• Methods are flexible; can be adapted

according to local experience and con-ditions

• Information easy to collate• Many tools available• Less chance of interviewer bias com-

pared with formal surveys

Weaknesses

• Needs careful preparation• Needs good group management skills• Group pressure can suppress diver-

gent opinions• Results can be influenced by local

expectations of outside assistance• Courtesy bias: people respond politely

rather than frankly• Produces less numerical data than oth-

er methods; technicians and donorslike to see quantitative data

• Results need to be presented with careso that readers not familiar with partici-patory methods do not misinterpret theresults

• The composition of the discussiongroups can be biased, and people whohave much work may be unable toattend

Opportunities

• Development of monitoring and impactassessment systems that local peoplecan sustain after project

• Increases participation of community asa whole

• Can be used as management tool• Training in these methods can change

attitudes• Methods can be incorporated into rou-

tine activities• Methods useful for visioning and assist-

ing local bodies to plan ahead

Threats

• Too much other work – PM&E must bemade a priority

• Insecurity• Natural disasters• Operational constraints, e.g. logistical• Varying capacities of local develop-

ment committees; some may not yet beready to use PM&E

• Scepticism among officials about usingparticipatory methods

• Reluctance of officials to hand overownership of information and decision-making to local people

Source: Catley (1999c), adapted


There are, however, a number of traps into which a project trying to pur-sue PM&E can fall. The most basic one is ignoring the questions: Why

monitor? Who needs and will use what information? Participatory ap-proaches to information generation and interpretation can lead tobiases, especially where pastoralists are involved who do not have a

relationship of trust with outsiders or who see the exercise as an op-portunity to seize advantages. This can be the case, for example, indrought monitoring, when declaration of a state of drought can bring

financial assistance to livestock-keepers. There is also the danger ofindicator overload, which wastes the time of participants and gives M&Ea sour taste. Finally, many intervention projects are, at least initially, not

aware of the extent to which PM&E of environmental trends, orga-nisational development or project-supported activities can become partof a power play between different groups of resource users or between

different levels of government.

Exactly in such situations, PM&E can be used deliberately as a means

of shifting power relations in the sense of giving voice to previously mar-ginalised or ignored user groups such as women or nomads. This ispossible in the framework of multi-stakeholder platforms that function as

monitoring mechanisms for better management of common resources.Negotiation is needed so that different interest groups can reach anagreement on what to observe and measure, and what is possible within

their capacities and means. This negotiation process must continuethrough joint assessment of the very PM&E system the platform has putin place, examining whether the concerns of all stakeholder groups have

been included. Thus, platform building becomes a continuous processfed by self-evaluation.

It is clear that not all aspects of development can be and should bemonitored in a participatory way. PM&E is applicable only with respectto those issues that are important enough to the participants that they

are willing to invest their time and other inputs in the implementation.Pastoralists and other resource users will participate in M&E only if theysee clear benefits. If scientists wish to monitor certain parameters that

are not of interest to the livestock-keepers, or not to the exactitude thatscientists want, there is no alternative but to hire enumerators or provide


other forms of incentive (e.g. free veterinary care) to persuade livestock-keepers to make the measurements and keep the records.

Similarly, reference plots for calibration of satellite imagery, which canbe useful tools for monitoring the state of rangelands on a large scale,

should be left to the staff of project staff and government agencies.Some forms of M&E may be very useful to pastoralists even if theycannot participate in collecting the data. For example, a drought early-

warning system operating on a large scale can help pastoralists inmanaging their livelihoods, provided the information reaches them intime and in an understandable form. What can be monitored and

evaluated jointly with the pastoralists is whether and how they haveaccess to the information and whether it helps them in their owndecision-making about using the resources.

The results of PM&E must be followed by action. An intervention projectneeds to be able to respond positively to the findings, even if this means

that it has to change direction and become a water and health pro-gramme instead of a pasture improvement programme.

The low population density in pastoral areas, their remoteness and theirpoor infrastructure in terms of roads and telecommunications can makethe costs of PM&E very high, even if indicators and records are limited

to the most essential. These costs must be justified in terms of thecontribution that the PM&E process makes to building capacities formanaging natural, including human, resources. Capacity building for

PM&E is necessary not only at the level of local beneficiaries, but alsoamong the other partners in the development process. Developmentagencies that are truly committed to pastoral development must be

prepared to invest the necessary time and money in participatoryapproaches within the framework of process-oriented projects andprogrammes. PM&E can then be a very useful means of enhancing joint

learning by pastoralists and other development planners about sustain-able use of the rangelands and improving pastoral livelihoods.


6. REFERENCES

Abbot J & Guijt I. 1998. Changing views on change: participatoryapproaches to monitoring the environment. SARL Discussion Paper2. London: IIED.

Acherkouk M et al. 1995. Applicabilité de l'outil participatif SEPO pour

l'auto-évaluation des actions d'aménagement pastoral au MarocOriental. Meknès: Projet de Développement des Parcours et del’Élevage dans l’Oriental / Institut National de la RechercheAgronomique / Projet GTZ Conseil.

ActionAid-Somaliland. 1995. Programme Review / Evaluation October1994. London: ActionAid.

ActionAid-Somaliland. 1999. Programme review June 1998 by Sanaagcommunity based organisation. London: ActionAid.

Allen WJ. 1997. Towards improving the role of evaluation within naturalresource management R&D programmes: the case for “learning bydoing”. Canadian Journal of Development Studies XVIII: 629–643.

Ashby JA. 1990. Evaluating technology with farmers: a handbook. Cali:CIAT.

Atampugre N. 1995. E-mail, Nicholas Atampugre, Research and PolicyProgramme, ACORD, London, to A Waters-Bayer, 18 October 1995.

Banzhaf M, Drabo B & Grell H. 2000. From conflict to consensus:

towards joint management of natural resources by pastoralists andagropastoralists in the zone of Kishi Beiga, Burkina Faso. Securingthe Commons 3. London: IIED.

Baumann MPO. 1993. Animal health services in Somalia: cancentralized structures meet demand in the field? In: Baumann MPO,Janzen J & Schwartz HJ (eds), Pastoral production in Central

Somalia (Eschborn: GTZ), pp 299–321.Bayer W & Sloane P. 2002. International perspectives on the

rangelands. In: Grice A & Hodgkinson K (eds), Global rangelands:progress and prospects (Wallingford: CABI Publishing), pp 211–220.

Borrini-Feyerabend G, Farvar MT, Nguinguiri JC & Ndangang V. 2000.Co-management of natural resources: organising, negotiating andlearning-by-doing. Heidelberg: Kasparek Verlag / GTZ & IUCN.

Bosma RH, Bengaly K, Meurs M, Diabaté D, Sanogo B & Bagayogo S.1996. The role of monitoring cattle and small ruminant productivity inlivestock diagnostic studies: southern Mali. In: Roeleveld ACW & vanden Broek A (eds), Focusing livestock systems research (Amster-dam: Royal Tropical Institute), pp 64–76.


Bosch OJH, Allen WJ, Williams JM & Ensor AH. 1996. An integratedapproach for maximising local and scientific knowledge for landmanagement decision making in the New Zealand high country.Rangeland Journal 18: 23–32.

Campbell A. 1994. Community first: Landcare in Australia. GatekeeperSeries 42. London: IIED.

Capezzuoli S. 1994. The development of the auto-evaluation process inthe Gao and Timbuktu regions of northern Mali: final report for theODA. London: ACORD.

Catley A. 1996. Pastoralists, paravets and privatisation: experiences inthe Sanaag Region of Somaliland. Pastoral Development NetworkPaper 39d. London: ODI.

Catley A. 1999a. Community-based animal health care in Somali areasof Africa: a review. Nairobi: Vetwork UK / Participatory Community-based Vaccination and Animal Health Project (PARC-VAC).

Catley A. 1999b. Methods on the move: a review of veterinary uses ofparticipatory approaches and methods focussing on experiences in

dryland Africa. London: IIED / DFID.

Catley A. 1999c. Monitoring and impact assessment of community-based animal health projects in southern Sudan: towards parti-cipatory approaches and methods – a report for Véterinaires sansFrontières Belgium and Véterinaires sans Frontières Switzerland.Nairobi: IIED Participation and Veterinary Epidemiology Project.

Conroy C & Rangnekar DV. 1999. Participatory research at the land-scape level: Kumbhan water trough case study. Case study preparedfor Joint CGIAR-PRGA / NRI Workshop on Participatory Researchfor Natural Resources Management: Continuing to Learn Together,1–3 September 1999, Natural Resources Institute, Greenwich, UK.

Conroy C. 2001. Participatory technology development with livestock

keepers: a guide. Chatham Maritime: NRI / Pune: BAIF DevelopmentResearch Foundation.

Cooper L & Gelezhamstin N. 1994. Historical matrices: a method formonitoring changes in seasonal consumption patterns in Mongolia.RRA Notes 20: 124–126.

Cross N & Barker R. 1998. The Sahel oral history project. In: Perks R &Thomson A (eds), The oral history reader. London: Routledge.

Cullis A. 1994. Ranking with shagaa in Mongolia. RRA Notes 20: 87–88.

Cullis A & Pacey A. 1992. A development dialogue: rainwater harvesting

in Turkana. London: Intermediate Technology Publications (ITP).


Defoer T, Kanté S, Hilhorst T & De Groote H. 1996. Towards moresustainable soil fertility management. AgREN Network Paper 63.London: ODI.

Devavaram J. 1994. Evaluation of a community-based buffalo project inTamil Nadu. RRA Notes 20: 133–137.

Drought Monitoring Project. 1993. The drought monitoring bulletin: IsioloDistrict / Samburu District / Turkana District. Lodwar: DroughtMonitoring Project.

Fitter JC, Kressirer RF, Kroll T, Kruger AS, Neumann NPK & Werner W.2001. Coping in a fragile environment: the SARDEP experience.Windhoek: Sustainable Animal and Range Development Pro-gramme; Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development.

Ford R, Lelo F & Rabarison H. 1998. Linking governance and effectiveresource management: a guidebook for community-based monitoring

and evaluation. Worcester: Clark University / Egerton University /APAM / VITA.

Galaty JG & Johnson DL. 1990. The world of pastoralism: herding

systems in comparative perspective. New York: Guilford Press /London: Belhaven Press.

Gardner JS, Duffield C, Berkes F & Singh RB. 1997. Local knowledge inthe assessment of resource sustainability: case studies in HimachalPradesh and British Columbia. Winnipeg: Natural Resources Insti-tute, University of Manitoba.

Gentil D & Marty A. 1979. Intensification de l'élevage pastoral sahélien:les expériences de Tchintabaraben (Niger) et de la 6ème Région duMali. In: Billaz R & Dufumier M (éds), La Recherche-Développement

appliquée à l'agriculture tropicale et méditerranéenne semi-aride:objectifs, conditions et méthodes: analyses à la lumière de cinqexpériences (Montpellier: DGRST Comité Lutte contre l'AriditéTropicale), pp173–200.

Gosling L & Edwards M. 1995. Toolkits: a practical guide toassessment, monitoring, review and evaluation. DevelopmentManual 5. London: Save the Children Fund.

Guijt I. 1998. Participatory monitoring and impact assessment ofsustainable agriculture initiatives: an introduction to the key

elements. SARL Programme Discussion Paper 1. London: IIED.

Haan C de. 1999. Future challenges to international funding agencies inpastoral development: an overview. In: Eldridge D & FreudenbergerD (eds), Proceedings of the VI International Rangeland Congress:People and Rangelands Building the Future, Vol. 1, pp 153–155.


Hambly H & Angura TO (eds). 1996. Grassroots indicators fordesertification: experience and perspectives from Eastern and

Southern Africa. Ottawa: IDRC.

Hardi P & Pinter L. 1995. Models and methods of measuring sustainabledevelopment performance. Winnipeg: International Institute forSustainable Development.

Harnmeijer J, Waters-Bayer A & Bayer W. 1999. Dimensions ofparticipation in evaluation: experiences from Zimbabwe and theSudan. Gatekeeper Series 83. London: IIED.

Hussein K. 1998. Conflict between farmers and herders in the semi-aridSahel and East Africa: a review. Pastoral Land Tenure Series 10.London: IIED.

Ison R & Russell D (eds). 2000. Agricultural extension and ruraldevelopment: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

ITDG East Africa. 1999. Participatory impact monitoring systems(PIMS). Nairobi: Rural Agriculture and Pastoralism Programme,ITDG East Africa.

Kerven C. 1992. Customary commerce: a historical reassessment ofpastoral livestock marketing in Africa. London: ODI.

Kiema A. 2000. Méthodologie de suivi d’impact des codes locaux degestion des ressources naturelles en région sahelienne du BurkinaFaso – zones de Kishi-Beiga, Darkoye et Djobou. Dori: ProgrammeSahel Burkinabé.

Krugmann H. 1996. Towards improved indicators to measuredesertification and monitor the implementation of the DesertificationConvention. In: Hambly H & Angura TO (eds), Grassroots indicatorsfor desertification: experience and perspectives from Eastern andSouthern Africa (Ottawa: IDRC), pp 20–37.

Le Gall F. 1999. West African Pilot Pastoral Programme (WAPPP). In:Eldridge D & Freudenberger D (eds), Proceedings of the VI Inter-national Rangeland Congress: People and Rangelands Building the

Future, Vol. 1, p 156.

Lightfoot C & Noble R. 1993. A participatory experiment in sustainableagriculture. Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension 4 (1):11–34.

Lunch C, Lunch N & Orazvalieva J. 2000. Turkmenistan ParticipatoryVideo Pilot Project 1999. Northhampton, UK. Mimeo.


Lycklama à Nijeholt R, Bety A & Tielkes E. 2001 L’exploitation despâturages aménagés: expériences d’un projet de gestion desressources naturelles. In: Tielkes E, Schlecht E & Hiernaux P (éds),Elevage et gestion de parcours au Sahel: implications pour ledéveloppement (Beuren: Verlag Grauer), pp 55–61.

MacGillivray A & Zadek S. 1995. Accounting for change: indicators forsustainable development. London: New Economics Foundation.

Martin P & Quinney S. 1995. Participatory Evaluation Project SOSSahel / UNSO: Final report / Annotated bibliography on participatoryappraisal, monitoring and evaluation. London: SOS Sahel.

Marty A. 1985. Le gestion des pâturages en zone pastorale (Région deGao, Mali). Les Cahiers de la Recherche-Développement 6: 22–24.

Marty A. 1993. La gestion des terroirs et les éleveurs: un outil d'exclu-sion ou de négociation? Revue Tiers Monde XXXIV (No. 134): 325–344.

MDP. 1998. MDP impact monitoring system. In: Marsabit DevelopmentProgramme (MDP) M&E Consultancy Report. Ministry of Agriculture,Livestock Development and Marketing, Government of Kenya / GTZ.

Mellis D, Matsaert H & Mwaniki B. 1999. Participatory technologydevelopment for animal traction: experiences from a semi-arid areaof Kenya. In: Starkey P & Kaumbutho P (eds), Meeting thechallenges of animal traction: a resource book of the Animal TractionNetwork for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA), Harare,

Zimbabwe (London: ITP), pp 20–27.

Mosse D, Farrington J & Rew A. 1998. Development as process: con-cepts and methods for working with complexity. London: Routledge.

Niamir M. 1990. Herders’ decision-making in natural resourcesmanagement in arid and semi-arid Africa. Community Forestry Note4. Rome: FAO Forests, Trees and People Programme.

Pantuliano S. 1998. Participatory evaluation: the experience of ACORDRed Sea Hills Development Programme. Port Sudan: ACORD.

Plastow J & Pantuliano S. 2001. Experimenting with PIM: the ACORDSudan Urban-Rural Linkages Programme experience of adaptingParticipatory Impact Monitoring. Paper prepared for Workshop onAppropriate Methodologies for Urban Agriculture Research, Plan-ning, Implementation and Evaluation, October 2001, Nairobi, Kenya.

Reckers U. 1995. Community-driven project evaluation. Letter to A vonLossau, GTZ, 9 November 1995.


Reckers U. 1997. Participatory project evaluation: letting local peoplehave their say. Development in Practice 7 (3): 12–14.

Roche C. 1991. ACORD's experience in local planning in Mali andBurkina Faso. RRA Notes 11: 33–41.

Schoonmaker Freudenberger K & Schoonmaker Freudenberger Mark.1994. Livelihoods, livestock and change: the versatility and richnessof historical matrices. RRA Notes 20: 144–148.

Shah P, Bharadwaj G & Ambastha R. 1991. Farmers as analysts andfacilitators in Participatory Rural Appraisal & Planning. RRA Notes13: 84–94.

Slim H & Thomson P. 1993. Listening for a change: oral testimony and

development. London: Panos Institute.

Soura A, Boureima D & Banzhaf M. 1998. Supporting local people intheir management of natural resources: project for land-use andnatural resource management. In: Forster R, Karkoschka O, Kitz M &Scherler C (eds), Beyond the toolkit: experiences with institutionalis-ing participatory approaches of GTZ supported projects in rural areas

(Eschborn: GTZ), pp 71–85.

Stafford Smith DM, Clewett JF, Moore AD, McKeon GM & Clark R.1997. DroughtPlan: building on grazier participation to manage for

climate variability. Canberra: Land & Water Resources Research andDevelopment Corporation.

Tachez C. 1995. De la gestion des feux de brousse à la gestion du

terroir. Paris: VSF.

Taylor G & Johansson L. 1996. Our voices, our words and our pictures:plans, truths and videotapes from Ngorongoro Conservation Area.Forests, Trees and People Newsletter 30: 28–39.

TDCPU. 1992. Turkana District drought manual, Version 2. Lodwar:Turkana Drought Contingency Planning Unit.

Uphoff N. 1991. A field methodology for participatory self-evaluation.Community Development Journal 26 (4): 271–285.

Veldhuizen L van, Waters-Bayer A & de Zeeuw H. 1997. Developing

technology with farmers: a trainer’s guide for participatory learning.London: ZED Books.

Vernooy R. 1999. Mapping, analysis and monitoring the natural re-source base in micro-watersheds: experience from Nicaragua. JointCGIAR-PRGA / NRI Workshop on Participatory Research for NaturalResources Management: Continuing to Learn Together, 1–3September 1999, Natural Resources Institute, Greenwich, UK.


Vogt G & Vogt K. 2000. Hannu Biyu Ke Tchuda Juna – strength in unity:shared management of common property resources – a case study

from Takiéta, Niger. Securing the Commons 2. London: IIED.

Warren K. 1998. Literature review of methods for planning, recordingand analysing information with farmers in on-farm participatoryresearch: review for DFID-funded project “The Development of FarmManagement Type Methods for Improved Needs Analysis”. Reading:Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Department,University of Reading. Mimeo.

Waters-Bayer A. 1988. Dairying by settled Fulani agropastoralists incentral Nigeria. Kiel: Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk.

Waters-Bayer A & Bayer W. 1994. Planning with pastoralists: PRA andmore – a review of methods focused on Africa. Eschborn: GTZ.

Waters-Bayer A & Bayer W. 1995. Planification avec des pasteurs:

MARP et au-delà – un compte rendu de méthodes centré surl’Afrique. Eschborn: GTZ.

Waters-Bayer A, Bayer W & von Lossau A. 1995. Participatory planningwith pastoralists: some recent experiences. Drylands ProgrammeIssue Paper 58. London: IIED.

Waters-Bayer A, Bayer, W, Ibrahim E, Tamiem AA, Sheik EH & BadrySA. 1998. Participatory evaluation of ACORD’s Red Sea HillsProgramme, May–June 1998: final report. London: ACORD.

White DH & Karssies L. 1999. Australia’s National Drought Policy: aims,analyses and implementation. Water International 24 (1): 2–9.

Wild RG & Mutebi J. 1996. Conservation through community use ofplant resources: establishing collaborative management at Bwindi

Impenetrable and Mgahinga Gorilla National Parks, Uganda. Peopleand Plants Working Paper 5. Paris: UNESCO.

Yohannes GebreMichael & Waters-Bayer A. 2002. Combined report onevaluation of the Natural Resource Management Programme ofHope for the Horn. The Hague: Novib.

Zessin K-H, Heuer C & Schrecke W. 1993. The Central RangelandsDevelopment Project (CRDP) – veterinary component. In: BaumannMPO, Janzen J & Schwartz HJ (eds), Pastoral production in CentralSomalia (Eschborn: GTZ), pp 97–111.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 57

Part II:

Annotated bibliography


A. Useful documents on PM&E in NRM in general

Abbot J & Guijt I. 1998. Changing views on change: participatory

approaches to monitoring the environment. SARL ProgrammeDiscussion Paper 2. London: IIED. 96pp.

environment, methods, monitoring, review

Review of participatory approaches to tracking biophysical changes in projectsfocused on environmental regeneration, drawing on published literature, inter-views with practitioners and experiences of an action-research project in Brazil.Examines the roles of different stakeholders in each stage of the monitoringprocess. Supposed trade-offs, e.g. between scientific rigour and maintaininglocal participation in monitoring, are discussed. The book describes methodsthat 1) are based on PRA visualisation techniques, 2) use oral testimony tounderstand patterns of environmental change, and 3) adapt methods ofecological assessment for use by local people.

Ashby JA. 1990. Evaluating technology with farmers: a handbook.

Cali: CIAT. 95pp.

evaluation, participatory experimentation, technology development

Guide for researchers wanting to collaborate with farmers in on-farm trials;encourages researchers to listen to farmers’ views; includes some tools thatcould be used in participatory evaluation of technologies, also related tolivestock-keeping.

Bainbridge V, Foerster S, Pasteur K, Pimbert M, Pratt G & Arroyo YI.2000. Transforming bureaucracies: institutionalising participation

and people centred processes in natural resource management –

an annotated bibliography. London: IIED. 214pp.

bibliography, environment, gender, impact assessment, indigenous knowledge,

learning processes, methods, organisational change, participation, policy

Almost 400 documents are divided into seven overlapping themes importantfor institutionalising participation and people-centred processes in NRM:conceptual issues and theories of organisational change for participation;learning organisations; gender and organisational change; transformingenvironmental knowledge and organisational change; nurturing enablingattitudes and behaviour; policies for participation; methods for institutionali-sation and impact analysis. Each theme is treated in a separate chapter. Ananalytical overview is given of how bureaucracies can support local partici-pation in managing natural resources throughout all phases of the process,including PM&E.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY60

Estrella M & Gaventa J. 1998. Who counts reality? Participatory

monitoring and evaluation: a literature review. IDS Working Paper70. Brighton: IDS. 73pp.

methods, participatory learning, review

Reviews literature on experiences in participatory M&E from around the world,involving all kinds of stakeholders – NGOs, donors, research institutions,government, people's organisations and communities. Introduces the keyprinciples of PM&E, its application for different purposes (impact assessment,project management, institutional learning, understanding and negotiatingstakeholder perspectives, public accountability) and various tools andmethods.

Estrella M, Blauert J, Campilan D, Gaventa J, Gonsalves J, Guijt I,Johnson D & Ricafort R (eds). 2000. Learning from change: issues

and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation.

London: ITP / IDRC. 274pp.

capacity building, community development, farmer experimentation, impact

assessment, indicators, methodological issues, organisational development,

self-evaluation

Collection of 12 case studies on PM&E from around the world, focused on theprocess and forms of participation of different stakeholders. Part 1 describesinnovations in methods and approaches to PM&E; Part 2 deals withcommunity-driven PM&E; and Part 3 looks at implications of “scaling up”PM&E in terms of creating learning-oriented organisations.

Ford R et al. 1996. Conserving resources and increasing produc-

tion: using participatory tools to monitor and evaluate community-

based resource management practices. Worcester: Center forCommunity-Based Development, Program for International Develop-ment, Clark University / Nakuru: PRA Programme, Egerton University.53pp.

Kenya, community development, self-monitoring

Case study with examples of field uses of participatory tools for M&E. Threecommunities in Kenya identified their own indicators of good NRM andrecorded relevant changes in community log books (see Razakamanarina et al.1995). This helped them assess the effectiveness of alternative approachesand practices, and to evaluate their own progress in implementing theircommunity action plans. The manual (Ford et al 1998) mentioned in Section Bis based on these experiences.


Forster R, Karkoschka O, Kitz M & Scherler C (eds). 1998. Beyond the

tool kit: experiences with institutionalising participatory approach-

es in GTZ supported projects in rural development. 2nd ed.Eschborn: GTZ Unit 04. 244pp.

action learning, capacity building, community development, decentralisation,

institutionalisation

A good, critical reflection on experiences with institutionalising participatoryapproaches in development cooperation, including some projects related tolivestock and pastoral development (e.g. Soura et al 1998). PM&E ismentioned several times, but in the sense that “ways should be explored” and“tools for participatory monitoring and evaluation are being developed”.However, the secrets about what these ways and tools are and how they weredeveloped are not revealed.

Shah P, Bharadwaj G & Ambastha R. 1991. Farmers as analysts and

facilitators in Participatory Rural Appraisal & Planning. RRA Notes13: 84–94.

India, communication, experimentation, innovation, mapping, monitoring,

planning

In the framework of watershed management activities supported by the AgaKhan Rural Support Programme, villagers identify local innovations, examinetheir potential to solve problems, collaborate in experimentation and evaluatethe results. Members of different local groups make sketches and diagrams toshow how innovations have affected them (technical, social and economicimpact). Emphasis is on mapping resources and socio-economic aspects (e.g.lenders, borrowers) and on monitoring by making a series of maps at variousstages of a village project to show changes in productivity or access to naturalresources, marked by the villagers with symbols. Maps proved effective ingiving a common framework for discussion and planning in group meetings, forresolving conflicts and for analysing impacts over time.

UPWARD. 1997. Self-assessment: participatory dimensions of

project monitoring and evaluation., Manila: CIP-UPWARD. 99pp.

Asia, agricultural research, impact assessment

Description and analysis of field experiences, focused on validating situationanalysis and problem characterisation by local people and on institutionalisingPM&E done as a self-assessment to form a basis for further planning. Threetypes of project activities are monitored: facilitating social processes (e.g.participatory learning, capacity building), technology development and projectmanagement.


B. Useful guides on PM&E in NRM

Borrini-Feyerabend G, Farvar MT, Nguinguiri JC & Ndangang V. 2000.Co-management of natural resources: organising, negotiating and

learning-by-doing. Heidelberg: Kasparek Verlag / GTZ & IUCN. 95pp.

adaptive management, methods, negotiation

A guide to a process of participatory management (PM) of natural resources,that involves: 1) preparing for and organising the partnership; 2) negotiatingthe management agreements; and 3) implementing, monitoring, evaluating andrevising the agreements (“learning-by-doing”). While the agreements are beingimplemented, the partners collect data laid out in an agreed protocol. Duringthe process, there is experimentation with some innovation as a result of newinformation, refinement of technical solutions and/or a wider-scale applicationof activities. Review meetings are organised at regular intervals to evaluate theresults and lessons learned. The guide includes annexes with methods, e.g.participatory mapping, brainstorming, trend analysis and SWOT (strengths,weaknesses, opportunities, threats), examples of community vision and strat-egy, and a case study from the Co-Management Project in the Congo Basin.

Davis-Case D. 1989. Community forestry: participatory assessment,

monitoring and evaluation. Community Forestry Note 2. Rome: FAO.150pp.

community forestry, methods, situation analysis

Presents concept, methods and tools of Participatory Assessment, Monitoringand Evaluation (PAME) and gives many sources of further information,although now somewhat outdated.

Feuerstein MF. 1986. Partners in evaluation: evaluating

development and community programmes with participants.

London: Macmillan. 196pp.

community development, evaluation, health programmes

A classic among the various handbooks on participatory evaluation. Althoughdesigned primarily for use in health and community development programmes,the general framework that it provides for understanding and planningparticipatory evaluation and for participation in analysing, reporting and usingthe results is highly relevant for PM&E in all aspects of development, includingwork with livestock-keepers. The guide is obviously based on long years of fieldexperience, brings good practical examples and is well illustrated. It is a muchbetter introduction to PM&E than many guides on NRM monitoring based onthe assumption that local resource users will want to collect data for outsiders.


Ford R, Lelo F & Rabarison H. 1998. Linking governance and

effective resource management: a guidebook for community-

based monitoring and evaluation. Worcester: Clark University /Egerton University / APAM / VITA. 42pp.

Kenya, Madagascar, community development, methods

Presents various PM&E techniques designed to help resource users see theimpact of their own practices and to build these findings into improved localmanagement of natural resources that can be linked with national resourcemanagement policies. Uses examples from case studies in four communities,three from semi-arid areas in Kenya and one from a buffer zone of a nationalpark in Madagascar. Gives attention to impacts not only on the naturalenvironment and household income but also on personal attitudes, culturalvalues and political behaviour. Monitoring tools described include trend lines,Venn diagrams, ranking and record-keeping.

Germann D, Gohl E & Schwarz B. 1996. Participatory impact

monitoring. Braunschweig: Vieweg & GATE / GTZ. 170pp.

impact assessment, monitoring, self-help groups, social change

Guide for action-oriented management, based on separate monitoring by localself-help groups and the supporting development organisation. During periodiccomparison of the results, the two groups of actors reflect on their assess-ments, adapt their planning accordingly and deepen their dialogue. The em-phasis is on evaluation of socio-cultural and organisational impacts. The guideconsists of four booklets: 1) Group-based impact monitoring; 2) NGO-basedimpact monitoring; 3) Application examples from India, Bolivia, Argentina andthe Philippines; and 4) The concept of participatory impact monitoring.

Guijt I. 1998. Participatory monitoring and impact assessment of

sustainable agriculture initiatives: an introduction to the key

elements. SARL Programme Discussion Paper 1. London: IIED. 112pp.

Brazil, impact assessment, methods, monitoring, sustainable agriculture

A methodological introduction to setting up a PM&E process for sustainableagriculture initiatives, initially written to guide an action-research process onmonitoring and impact assessment with small-scale producers, rural workersunions and NGOs engaged in sustainable agriculture in Brazil. Explains whyinterest in PM&E is growing, introduces the key concepts, identifies steps in de-veloping a monitoring system, discusses the complexity of selecting indicatorsand methods, and reflects on common pitfalls and specific difficulties faced inBrazil in starting up such a system for sustainable agriculture. An extendedannex gives a description and visual examples of twenty participatory methodsuseful for monitoring change.


Lee-Smith D. 1995. Community based indicators: a guide for field-

workers carrying out monitoring and assessment at community

level. Gland: IUCN. 12pp.

Zimbabwe, indicators, methods, sustainability

Intended as a simple guide for community workers to help identify indicatorsfor sustainable development. Gives examples of indicators likely to be relevantand measurable/observable at grassroots level, not referring specifically tolivestock or pasture but to NRM more generally. Some indicators could bequestioned, e.g. alleviation of fuelwood (or tree fodder) shortage cannot bemeasured simply according to number of people planting live fences; also thelength of fence would be important. Similarly, number of seedlings transplantedindicates little if the survival rate is ignored. Despite these shortcomings, thedown-to-earth approach goes in the right direction for PM&E.

Narayan D. 1993. Participatory evaluation: tools for managing

change in water and sanitation. World Bank Technical Paper 207.Washington DC: World Bank. 122pp.

indicators, methods, participatory processes, sanitation, sustainability, water

Based on experience of “Promotion of the Role of Women in Water andEnvironmental Sanitation Services” in Africa, Asia and Latin America, the guideis oriented around sets of indicators measuring sustainability, effective use andreplicability. It focuses on water and sanitation, but much of the content (e.g.on local institutional capacity and change assessment) is relevant also formanaging other natural resources. Includes many field examples, cases ofPM&E workshops, evaluation tools (e.g. pocket chart, three-pile sorting) andappendix on gender analysis for the three sets of indicators.

Razakamanarina N et al. 1995. Using village log books for moni-

toring and evaluation: a guide to community based project

management. Worcester: Clark University Program for InternationalDevelopment / APAM / VITA. 44pp.

Madagascar, community development, local organisation, methods

Explanation and examples of log books kept by villagers in protected andbuffer-zone areas to: 1) store baseline data collected by them; 2) record theiraction plans and indicators of progress; and 3) measure the well-being of thecommunity over the longer term. Focused on local organisational developmentand locally planned micro-projects, but also provides useful ideas for PM&E.


Selener D, Purdy C & Zapata G. 1996. Documenting, evaluating and

learning from our development projects: a participatory systemati-

zation workbook. Quito: IIRR. 107pp.

documentation, organisational development, process monitoring

Provides practical guidelines on how to design, monitor and evaluatedevelopment processes in a participatory way. “Systematization” is defined asa continuous process of joint reflection on a project’s processes and results,undertaken by project staff and its partners, including the beneficiaries. Theanalysis generates lessons that are fed back to improve the project. Theprocess is meant to strengthen the organisational capacity of the participants.


C. Documents on PM&E in pastoralism and live-

stock-keeping

Acherkouk M et al. 1995. Applicabilité de l'outil participatif SEPO

pour l'auto-évaluation des actions d'aménagement pastoral au

Maroc Oriental. Meknès: Projet de Développement des Parcours et del’Élevage dans l’Oriental / Institut National de la RechercheAgronomique / Projet GTZ Conseil. 64pp.

Morocco, range management, self-evaluation

Report on testing of SEPO (Succès, Echecs, Potentialités, Obstacles = SWOT,Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) with six rural communities ineast Morocco, as a tool for assisting resource users to evaluate and managepastoral development. SEPO helped focus the discussions and stimulated thepastoralists to improve communication with other groups so as to negotiatecoordinated use of pastoral areas. Recommendations for improving theapplication of SWOT are made.

ActionAid-Somaliland. 1995. Programme Review / Evaluation Octo-

ber 1994. London: ActionAid. 115pp.

Somaliland, animal health, indicators, methods, pastoral livelihoods, seasonality,

water

A multi-stakeholder review team (32 people) included representatives ofActionAid UK and Somaliland, elders from the various clans in the project areaand people from the local management groups at each project site. The philo-sophy behind the participatory review and the methods of implementing it, us-ing mainly PRA tools, are described in detail. The report has separate sectionson ActionAid’s and the local peoples’ perceptions of the benefits of the project’sinvestments in the water and animal health sectors. It gives attention not onlyto biophysical data related to livestock but also to benefits in local livelihoodsystems. The participants’ evaluation of the review process is also included.

ActionAid-Somaliland. 1999. Programme review June 1998 by

Sanaag community based organisation. London: ActionAid. 100pp.

Somaliland, animal health, conflict resolution, impact assessment, indicators,

water

The residents of Sanaag evaluated the benefits of development work byActionAid Somaliland (AAS) on water resources, animal health care, pastoralresources and the “Working in Conflict“ programme. A team of 42 people from


the Sanaag Community Based Organisation, representing different claninterests, was trained by AAS in evaluation techniques, designed the review,piloted it, amended the design and then conducted the main review. The teamassessed the value of AAS’s investments in terms of availability, reliability,accessibility, utilisation, coverage, quality, effort, efficiency and impact, using ahistorical comparison between the situations in 1992 and 1998. Resourcemaps were drawn and kept for further planning and evaluation exercises, andphotographic and video records were made. AAS staff compiled the report inEnglish and Somali. A prime example of a review in which the process was justas, if not more, important than the results.

Allen WJ. 1997. Towards improving the role of evaluation within

natural resource management R&D programmes: the case for

“learning by doing”. Canadian Journal of Development Studies XVIII:629–643.

New Zealand, action research, grazing, multi-stakeholder approach, process

evaluation

Participatory development programmes should be responsive to changingcommunity needs. A major challenge for decision-makers and evaluators is todevelop participatory evaluation processes that allow for ongoing learning andadjustment. This paper outlines such a process, using a case study of aprogramme for weed management on highland pastures in the southern islandof New Zealand, where the natural resources are used for multiple purposes.The programme applied a participatory research approach entitled IntegratedSystems for Knowledge Management (ISKM). This includes a three-prongedevaluation system. “Process evaluation” enables evaluators and stakeholdersto understand the links between resource use, programme activities, the(predetermined) objectives being pursued and the contribution of theprogramme to overall long-term vision. “Outcome evaluation” enables theparticipants to apply the results of the process evaluation to see which of theirgoals are achieved and to develop performance indicators. “Short-cycleevaluation” provides the feedback loops that are needed to make theprogramme self-improving. Evaluation thus becomes an integral process of adevelopment programme, in which all stakeholder groups are involved.

Ba Ibrahim. 1997. Le forum d’échanges intervillageois cadre de

planification et d’évaluation participative: Project de gestion des

ressources naturelles – le cas du Dallol Bossi au Niger. Paperprepared for World Bank Workshop on Participatory Monitoring andEvaluation, 5–6 February 1997, Washington DC. 6pp.

Niger, agrosylvopastoral systems, local organisation


Brief description of an M&E system introduced to village land managementcommittees, based on notebooks prepared by the project for recording credit,village meetings, visitors and expenses. The execution of activities is reviewedtwice a year in village meetings. The conclusions from these village-level self-evaluations are exchanged in intervillage meetings. Impact monitoring is notcarried out and usually the only person in the village who can write or read therecords is the committee secretary, who is given some compensation (it is notclear by whom) so that he remains in the village.

Banzhaf M, Drabo B & Grell H. 2000. From conflict to consensus:

towards joint management of natural resources by pastoralists

and agro-pastoralists in the zone of Kishi Beiga, Burkina Faso.

Securing the Commons 3. London: IIED. 38pp.

Burkina Faso, action research, organisational learning, stakeholder platform

The project for Land Use and Natural Resource Management in the Sahel ofBurkina Faso (PSB-GTZ) facilitated participatory land-use planning based onthe national “Gestion des Terroirs” (land management) approach and attempt-ed to integrate transhumant pastoralists into the planning process. The multi-stakeholder platform (consultative committee) of land and water users thatcoordinates resource management developed a system of internal monitoringand self-evaluation, but this is not described in the paper (see Kiema 2000).

Bayer W & Waters-Bayer A. 1999. Participatory evaluation with Beja

pastoralists in Sudan. In: Eldridge D & Freudenberger D (eds),Proceedings of the VI International Rangeland Congress: People andRangelands Building the Future, Vol. 1, pp 70–71.

Sudan, community development, evaluation, methods

A participatory approach was taken in an external evaluation of an ACORD-supported project in the Red Sea Hills of Eastern Sudan. Community memberswere involved in planning and implementing the evaluation, together withproject staff and external consultants. The methods are briefly outlined, andsome constraints and strengths of the approach are discussed (for completereport, see Waters-Bayer et al 1998).

Bosch OJH, Allen WJ, Williams JM & Ensor AH. 1996. An integrated

approach for maximising local and scientific knowledge for land

management decision-making in the New Zealand high country.Rangeland Journal 18 (1): 23–32.

New Zealand, knowledge management, land management, monitoring


Describes a process designed to integrate community knowledge (both localand scientific) into an accessible decision-support system for land managers(farmers). Tools for monitoring land condition, which had been developed byscientists, were modified so that land managers could use them. Landmanagement is described as an experiment involving continuous informalmonitoring and adaptation. Involvement in monitoring together with re-searchers allows land managers to acquire greater expertise and confidence.Stresses that all stakeholders in the rangelands need to collaborate to identifysustainable land management practices, and that co-research approaches andcontinuous participatory monitoring, feedback and action for improvementdepend on good links between scientists and local communities.

Burnside DG & Chamala S. 1994. Ground-based monitoring: a pro-

cess of learning by doing. Rangeland Journal 16 (2): 221–237.

Australia, learning process, monitoring, rangeland condition

Describes the "active adaptive approach" to monitoring rangeland condition bypastoralists, which treats management actions as deliberate experimentsdesigned to manage the resources effectively and to generate betterinformation for attaining sustainability. Ground-based monitoring served as alearning mechanism among pastoralists to assist their own decision-makingabout land care.

Capezzuoli S. 1994. The development of the auto-evaluation

process in the Gao and Timbuktu regions of northern Mali: final

report for the ODA. London: ACORD. 49pp.

Mali, modelling, restocking, self-evaluation, visualisation

Gives a detailed account of the use and adaptation of tools and strategies forM&E by Tuareg and other communities supported by ACORD, describing boththe strengths and weaknesses of the tools. Visual methods using images oflocal problems, although useful to trigger verbal analysis, proved time-consuming and difficult to apply by the local people themselves. "Maquettes"helped to solve community conflicts that could be represented by physicalmodels, and to experiment with possible solutions, e.g. avoiding dirty pools ofwater around a pastoral well. An impact-flow exercise elicited local perceptionsof an ACORD-supported activity that herders chose to assess: an irrigatedarea. Written and spoken (also audio-recorded) messages seemed to be themost suitable M&E tools for nomadic groups. Intercommunity meetings ofgroup representatives to assess and plan activities also provided opportunity toexchange information. Monitoring notebooks were kept by trained animatorsfrom the groups, as well as by members of local management committees(e.g. for rebuilding herds). The communities demanded a shift from visual to


written records for assessment and planning. Suggests that PRA tools beapplied to generate assessment criteria and indicators that are widely acceptedby the group.

Catley A. 1996. Pastoralists, paravets and privatisation: experience-

es in the Sanaag Region of Somaliland. Pastoral Development Net-work Paper 39d. London: ODI. 13pp.

Somaliland, animal health, economic aspects, indigenous knowledge, methods,

privatisation

PRA tools, such as livestock disease scoring by herders before and afterselection of paravets, are used to monitor the animal health programme.Information could thus be provided on the effectiveness of the paravets inreducing the incidence of the main animal diseases.

Catley A. 1999. Community-based animal health care in Somali

areas of Africa: a review. Nairobi: Vetwork UK / Participatory Commu-nity-based Vaccination and Animal Health Project (PARC-VAC). 57pp

Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Somaliland, animal health, monitoring, privatisation

Review of experiences with community-based animal health workers (CAHWs)in Somalia/Somaliland, northern Kenya and eastern Ethiopia. NGOs with long-term experience in participatory development achieved particularly positiveresults. Where government regulation was absent or weak, monitoring by thepastoralists was more effective than external monitoring of the CAHWs, whowere selected and paid by the pastoral communities. News travels fast amongnomads; the results of users’ evaluations of CAHWs spread correspondingly.

Catley A. 1999. Methods on the move: a review of veterinary uses

of participatory approaches and methods focussing on

experiences in dryland Africa. London: IIED / DFID. 99pp.

Africa, animal health, methods, review

Literature review of experiences in applying participatory approaches andmethods in veterinary services and research, mainly in community-basedanimal health projects in the Horn of Africa. Explores options for combiningconventional quantitative “hard science” assessment in veterinary epidemio-logy with participatory and largely qualitative (“soft systems”) inquiry that usesa 12-point framework to judge its trustworthiness. The emphasis is on methodsfor participatory situation analysis, with only a short section on PM&E.


Catley A. 1999. Monitoring and impact assessment of community-

based animal health projects in southern Sudan: towards partici-

patory approaches and methods – a report for Véterinaires sans

Frontières Belgium and Véterinaires sans Frontières Switzerland.Nairobi: IIED Participation and Veterinary Epidemiology Project. 61pp.

Sudan, animal health, information management, monitoring, methods,

transhumance

The approach to participatory monitoring and impact assessment used in thiswork was influenced by the soft systems methodology used by ActionAid-Somaliland (1999). This report describes the process through which veterinaryworkers and other livestock staff of the NGOs VSF-B and VSF-CH reviewedtheir current monitoring system, were introduced to participatory approachesand methods, and then developed new ways of working in the field. The workdemonstrated that simple participatory (PRA) tools can yield useful informationon key local indicators of change and benefit that can form the basis formonitoring systems. Emphasises the complementarity between participatoryand conventional monitoring and impact assessment.

Conroy C. 2001. Participatory technology development with live-

stock keepers: a guide. Chatham Maritime: NRI / Pune: BAIFDevelopment Research Foundation. 64pp.

India, goats, methods, monitoring, participatory experimentation, statistics

Guide to participatory technology development written for governmentresearchers and staff of development NGOs, based largely on experiences of agoat project focused on easing seasonal feed scarcity in semi-arid India.Includes a good discussion of when participatory trials are feasible. Coversmethods of joint design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of trials bylivestock-keepers and researchers, as well as dissemination of results andinstitutionalisation of the approach. The monitoring section covers biophysicaldata and non-experimental variables to explain variation, as well as monitoringthe technology development process. Methods of both qualitative and quantita-tive assessment of innovations and methods of statistical analysis applicable inparticipatory research are described in easy-to-understand terms (complement-ed by 38-page guide: Participatory situation analysis with livestock keepers).

Conroy C & Rangnekar DV. 1999. Participatory research at the land-

scape level: Kumbhan water trough case study. CGIAR-PRGA/NRIWorkshop on Participatory Research for Natural ResourcesManagement: Continuing to Learn Together, 1–3 September 1999,Natural Resources Institute, Greenwich, UK. 4pp.

India, fodder, participatory research, problem tree, small ruminants, water


Case study from a research project in India on easing seasonal fodder scarcityfor small ruminants. The problem analysis in one village showed that waterscarcity was more important than feed scarcity. A water trough was con-structed, and the herders and scientists monitored its impact on animals andpeople. Pitfalls into which the researchers, such as very data-intensive moni-toring, became evident during a joint evaluation by the herders and scientists.

Cooper L & Gelezhamstin N. 1994. Historical matrices: a method for

monitoring changes in seasonal consumption patterns in

Mongolia. RRA Notes 20: 124–126.

Mongolia, food consumption, historical analysis, matrix scoring, methods,

monitoring

Reports on the use of seasonal consumption matrices to evaluate the impact ofeconomic liberation on consumption patterns among Mongolian pastoralists.Informants from wealthy and poorer households were asked to name foodsconsumed in the past year and to give each food item a score against eachmonth. This was repeated for a 12-month period five years earlier, and thepatterns were compared. It is not clear whether the informants themselvesdiscussed the comparison and drew their own conclusions.

Cramb R & Purcell T. 2001. How to monitor and evaluate impacts of

participatory research projects: a case study of the Forages for

Smallholders Project. CIAT Working Document 185. Cali: CIAT. 55pp.(Available from CIAT c/o IRRI, DAPO Box 777, Metro Manila,Philippines; or ACIAR, GPO Box 1571, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia)

Philippines, Vietnam, diagramming, forage, impact assessment, indicators,

mapping, monitoring, participatory research, ranking

A CIAT project developed procedures to monitor and evaluate the impacts ofnew forage technologies emerging from Farmer Participatory Research.Participatory and conventional approaches to developing technologies withsmallholders were compared. The first part of the report covers conceptual andpractical issues involved in developing an M&E framework for the Forages forSmallholders Project. The second part reviews a range of M&E techniques,including maps, timelines, historical paths, seasonal calendars, flow andimpact diagrams, and crop and activity histories. Practical examples are givenof experiences made with these tools among smallholder livestock-keepers inthe Philippines and Vietnam, but the emphasis is more on the results ratherthan the “how”, i.e. the process.


Cullis A. 1994. Ranking with shagaa in Mongolia. RRA Notes 20: 87–88.

Mongolia, animal husbandry, historical analysis, methods, ranking

A combination of the time-trend and proportional-piling methods, using animalbones commonly used by Mongolian pastoralists in games, proved valuable inillustrating trends in winter livestock losses over the last 10 years and providinga basis for discussion with and among the pastoralists.

Cullis A & Pacey A. 1992. A development dialogue: rainwater

harvesting in Turkana. London: ITP. 126pp.

Kenya, animal traction, institutional analysis, process approach, social

organisation, water

Frank account of the history of development projects in the Turkana region ofnorthwest Kenya. In 1979/80, drought and disease drastically reduced livestocknumbers and caused severe famine. Subsequent "food-for-work" programmeswere partly successful but attempts to offer alternative sources of livelihood(fishing, farming) were not. Project staff with long experience in the areaobserved that sorghum gardens to supplement animal produce were mainly atsites of natural water harvesting. Intensive dialogue with the Turkana led todevelopment of improved water-harvesting techniques. Perhaps more impor-tant was the institutional success: the local people organised themselves toidentify problems, derive solutions, implement joint action and monitor results.Rather than creating artificial social groupings, the project sought to strengthenexisting local institutions. The approach involved unhurried dialogue, resistingdonor pressure for tangible results by fixed dates and depending on goodrelations with the pastoral community.

Devavaram J. 1994. Evaluation of a community-based buffalo

project in Tamil Nadu. RRA Notes 20: 133–137.

India, animal husbandry, calendar, evaluation, livelihood analysis, mapping,

methods, restocking

PRA methods were incorporated into a mid-term evaluation of a buffalo-restocking project in India. Semi-structured interviews provided the mostinformation about the project's weak points. Seasonal calendars revealed thehigh employment potential, leaving little time for livestock care. Livelihoodanalyses revealed sources of income and their relative importance. In a secondevaluation of the same project, villagers were no longer willing to "play PRAgames" (draw resource maps), feeling it was a waste of time because therecommendations of the first PRA had not been acted upon.


Fitter JC, Kressirer RF, Kroll T, Kruger AS, Neumann NPK & WernerW. 2001. Coping in a fragile environment: the SARDEP experience.

Windhoek: SARDEP, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Develop-ment. 157pp.

Namibia, institutional development, range management

The philosophy, approaches and achievements of the GTZ-supported Sustain-able Animal and Range Development Programme (SARDEP) are presented.The programme initially looked for technical interventions, but soon realisedthat institutional development – training of staff and farmers in managingcommunication processes and natural resources – had to be a major thrust.The strong involvement of Ministry staff in evaluations of the project led to asimilarly strong ownership of the programme by the Ministry. However, there islittle indication how livestock farmers perceived and evaluated the programme.In the formal evaluations, their role was restricted to being interviewed. Theemphasis on institutional development also means that technical interventionsand the monitoring of their impact are less prominent in the book.

Gardner JS, Duffield C, Berkes F & Singh RB. 1997. Local knowledge

in the assessment of resource sustainability: case studies in

Himachal Pradesh and British Columbia. Winnipeg: NaturalResources Institute, University of Manitoba. 25pp.

Canada, India, indicators, indigenous knowledge, resource sustainability,

watershed management

Cross-cultural comparison of local perceptions and knowledge as applied toindicators of environmental sustainability in the Himalayas of northern Indiaand the Columbian Mountains of western Canada. Based on historical reviews,field observations and interviews, and participatory workshops. Note the type ofquestions posed to elicit local criteria for sustainability. Inhabitants articulatedforest-linked, agricultural and especially socio-economic indicators that differedfrom those of resource management "professionals". The authors concludethat significant attention must be paid to site-specific indicators whenassessing sustainability. Example of a search for indigenous indicators by“professionals” to use in their monitoring of sustainability, but not an exampleof PM&E with the local people involved in the monitoring.

Gentil D & Marty A. 1979. Intensification de l'élevage pastoral

sahélien: les expériences de Tchintabaraben (Niger) et de la 6ème

Région du Mali. In: Billaz R & Dufumier M (éds), La Recherche-Développement appliquée à l'agriculture tropicale et méditerranéennesemi-aride: objectifs, conditions et méthodes (Montpellier: DGRSTComité Lutte contre l'Aridité Tropicale), pp173–200.


Mali, Niger, conflict management, pasture improvement, process approach,

restocking, situation analysis, social organisation

In two projects with mainly Tuareg pastoralists, after improvements in animalhealth and water availability, the focus moved to improving animal nutritionthrough better range management and use of pastoral space. The Nigerienpastoralists suggested harvesting good pasture species in underexploitedareas and resowing them in degraded areas put under protection. After severaldiscussions, they formed a territorial association to manage the improvedareas. In a series of meetings, the pastoralists and technicians assessed theresults of the enclosure experiment, made improvements and defined new ac-tivities. Relations between pastoralists and technicians gradually changed frominformal discussions to (verbal) contractual agreements to divide tasks andresponsibilities. The process was dominated by the leaders; other groups, e.g.women, even if interviewed separately, did not contradict the "official" view.

In Mali, a process of reviving a cooperative was accompanied bynumerous discussions between pastoral leaders and project staff to monitorprogress and correct course. Parallel to this, the staff monitored how loans forherd reconstitution given by the cooperative were used, collected proverbs andsayings which revealed pastoralists' attitudes, and recorded various socio-economic indicators such as participation in meetings and decision-making.There was a continuous process of negotiation between pastoralists andproject staff in repeated cycles of situation analysis, planning simpleexperiments, implementing them and evaluating the results.

Hambly H & Angura TO (eds). 1996. Grassroots indicators for

desertification: experience and perspectives from Eastern and

Southern Africa. Ottawa: IDRC. 168pp.

Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe, indicators, indigenous knowledge

Illuminates importance of grassroots indicators for interpreting environmentalchange and for generating information to support local action and innovation.Grassroots indicators are measures or signals of environmental quality orchange formulated by local inhabitants, derived from their own systems ofobservation, practice and indigenous knowledge. Emphasis is on M&E ofdesertification. A summary of findings and challenges is given in "Grassrootsindicators: measuring and monitoring environmental change at the local level",ILEIA Newsletter 12 (3): 14–15.

Harnmeijer J, Waters-Bayer A & Bayer W. 1999. Dimensions of

participation in evaluation: experiences from Zimbabwe and the

Sudan. Gatekeeper Series 83. London: IIED. 20pp.

Sudan, Zimbabwe, evaluation, pastoral development, water management


This analysis of two participatory evaluations in Sudan and Zimbabwe, carriedout on the request of NGOs (ACORD and CARE, respectively), addresseslimitations to externally-mandated participatory evaluations that generateprimarily qualitative data when also quantitative data were requested. In theZimbabwe case, quantitative data were available from prior conventionalevaluations, whereas few such data could be found in the Sudan case.Different stakeholders (funding agency, implementing agency, local adminis-tration, “beneficiaries”) have legitimate interests in different types of evaluationprocesses and in different types of information and outcomes. Indicates thedifficulties faced by a small external team working for a short period when it isexpected to facilitate a participatory evaluation of a programme with a widerange of activities.

Ison R & Russell D (eds). 2000. Agricultural extension and rural

development: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. 239pp.

Australia, action research, monitoring, process evaluation, rangemanagement

A research project in western New South Wales in Australia, where sheep arekept on arid rangeland, started with the assumption that the conventionaltransfer-of-technology approach to extension is not working. Detailed researchrevealed that a major reason for this is lack of communication between farmers(“graziers” or “wool producers”) and various government and private services.The project dealt with a “Western” and largely literate society. Forms of visuali-sation such as proportional piling or Venn diagrams did not play a major roleas evaluation tools. The action research was carried out primarily throughdiscussions, meetings and visits (to wool mills, wool marketing board etc). Achapter entitled “The graziers’ story” gives the producers’ assessments of theresearch process and outcome, not according to any fixed format or referringto specific indicators but, rather, as subjective accounts.

The main thrust of the book is on research approaches. A difference ismade between “first-order processes” in research, in which researchers areoutside the system they are observing and analysing, and “second-order pro-cesses”, in which researchers are active partners in a development process.The chapter “From theodolite to satellite” recounts the history of the top-downapproach to range monitoring that is carried out for two main reasons: becausethe resource users and the government want to have “order” in an apparentlychaotic world, and because the State wants to exert its power over the resourceusers. This is apparent in many “high-tech” approaches to monitoring.


ITDG East Africa. 1999. Participatory impact monitoring systems

(PIMS). Nairobi: Rural Agriculture and Pastoralism Programme (RAPP),ITDG East Africa. Mimeo. 4pp.

Kenya, impact assessment, monitoring, pastoral development

Brief description of use of system developed by IT Kenya for monitoring theimpact of project activities. The pastoral communities (Gabra and Turkana)selected their own indicators and ways of recording, e.g. using colour codeswith cultural significance for good or bad, or number of legs on an animal todenote well-being and flexibility of movement. The records, kept by localmonitors selected by the project, can be converted into scores to enablestatistical analysis of the impact of project activities on pasture availability,food availability, human health, peace and women’s involvement indevelopment activities etc. However, it is not clear whether this was actuallydone. The monitoring system also gives early warning of imminent crisis(Sammy Keter, RAPP, pers. comm.).

Kiema A. 2000. Méthodologie de suivi d’impact des codes locaux

de gestion des ressources naturelles en région sahelienne du

Burkina Faso – zones de Kishi-Beiga, Darkoye et Djobou. Dori:Programme Sahel Burkinabé. 48pp.

Burkina Faso, impact assessment, land-use policy, monitoring, social

organisation, stakeholder platform

With project support, settled and semi-settled agropastoralists in northernBurkina Faso agreed on rules for land use, e.g. for cropping, grazing, clearingand haymaking. These rules are overseen by a management group of localpeople at each site, who are also responsible for sensitising transhumantpastoralists about the rules. The project helped the producers set up a systemto monitor the extent to which the rules are followed and what impact this has,supplemented by a system of ecological monitoring by the project. During aworkshop at each site involving the local management group plus technicalservices and administrative authorities, agreements were reached aboutindicators, sites of observation, times and methods of assessment, and re-sponsibilities. The management groups observe the degree of compliance byboth local and transhumant people in respecting dates of opening and closinggrazing areas, meeting obligations to herd (control) animals at certain times ofthe year, obtaining permission to graze crop residues or cut hay etc. Impact ismeasured, e.g. according to number of conflicts over resource use, degree ofsiltation of ponds and changes in vegetation (e.g. cutting of shrubs andgrasses and extent of regeneration). The methods are described in the futuretense, with a recommendation that the project continue to support producers inrecording and analysing monitoring data, as well as in evaluating and, ifnecessary, adjusting the monitoring framework.


Lunch C, Lunch N & Orazvalieva J. 2000. Turkmenistan Participatory

Video Pilot Project 1999. Northampton, UK. Mimeo. 18pp.

Turkmenistan, communication, documentation, group formation, impact

assessment, policy change, range management

Describes how participatory video filming and editing was used to bringtogether different groups in a community (men, women and children) and to letthem express their views and analyse problems. The process catalysedcommunity action, and the community could use the video in policy lobbying.This was in the framework of a DFID-funded pilot project on “Impacts ofPrivatisation on Range and Livestock Management in Semi-Arid Central Asia”to study the effect of policy change on land use; pasture condition; householdeconomies; livestock productivity, husbandry and marketing; and institutionalorganisation. It was followed by an EU-funded (Copernicus) project (2000–03):participatory video to document livestock-keepers’ perspectives on changesthey are experiencing and the impacts these have on their patterns of resourceuse. Video thus serves as a monitoring tool and as a means to open upcommunication channels between scientists, shepherds and policymakers.

Martin P & Quinney S. 1995. Participatory Evaluation Project SOS

Sahel/UNSO: Final report/Annotated bibliography on participatory

appraisal, monitoring and evaluation. London: SOS Sahel. 168pp.

Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Mali, Mauritania, Sudan, bibliography, methods,

participatory research

Report on a joint project of SOS Sahel and UNSO to explore methods ofinvolving Sahelian communities, mainly agropastoral, in evaluation of ruraldevelopment projects. It revealed very few examples of successful localmonitoring (these being mainly in farmer-researcher groups) and weakcapacities of NGOs or international projects to embark on participatoryevaluation. Discusses examples and possibilities of: 1) incorporatingparticipatory components into external evaluations; 2) project self-evaluation;and 3) various types of formal and informal PM&E.

Marty A. 1985. Le gestion des pâturages en zone pastorale (Région

de Gao, Mali). Les Cahiers de la Recherche-Développement 6: 22–24.

Mali, experimentation, pasture improvement, process approach, social

organisation

Report on an experiment in pasture management by settled and nomadicherders in northern Mali. Through a long process of patient dialogue, it waspossible for pastoral organisations and government services jointly to observepasture conditions over the year, analyse constraints, plan activities,implement and evaluate them, and make appropriate re-adjustments. Older


herders remembered how pastures not grazed in the wet season could be usedin the dry season. Also Panicum laetum areas, where fonio was collected forfood in times of need, were disappearing. The herders then started experimen-ting with a pasture management system based on twice-yearly meetings: oneat the start of the rains to identify reserve areas of pasture and Panicum

laetum, and one at the end of the rains to assess vegetation availability andneeds and to decide whether and when to open up protected areas.

Marty A. 1993. La gestion des terroirs et les éleveurs: un outil

d'exclusion ou de négociation? Revue Tiers Monde XXXIV (No.134): 325–344.

Cameroon, Mali, Niger, conflict management, mapping, marketing, social

organisation

In the Kaarta area of Mali, commissions of farmers and pastoralists began bynegotiating consensus, which led not to a fixed land-use plan but rather tofrequent monitoring and re-negotiation in response to changing conditions.Rehabilitation of pastoralism depends not on making a plan but rather onstrengthening institutions for decentralised negotiation.

MDP. 1998. MDP impact monitoring system. In: MarsabitDevelopment Programme (MDP) M&E Consultancy Report. Ministry ofAgriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing, Government ofKenya / GTZ. 20pp.

Kenya, self-help capacity development, impact assessment, monitoring,

livestock

Description of a simple impact monitoring system developed to measure, in aparticipatory way, the achievement of the purpose of the developmentprogramme, namely, to increase the local communities’ self-help capacity tomanage better their social, economic and ecological environment andcircumstances. This marked the beginning of a revised system; the experiencereported was still on the level of involving local administrations in M&E.

Mellis D, Matsaert H & Mwaniki B. 1999. Participatory technology de-

velopment for animal traction: experiences from a semi-arid area

of Kenya. In: Starkey P & Kaumbutho P (eds), Meeting the challengesof animal traction: a resource book of the Animal Traction Network forEastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA), Harare, Zimbabwe (London:ITP), pp 20–27.

Kenya, agricultural implements, animal traction, participatory research


Describes and discusses experiences in developing animal-drawn equipment ina pilot programme with metal workers and men and women farmers. Farmersdesigned the on-farm trials to test the equipment, selected their monitoringcriteria and evaluated the results in farmer-to-farmer visits and focus-groupmeetings. They made recommendations to improve the equipment andexperimented with their own adaptations and innovations for animal tractionand hand tillage.

Pantuliano S. 1998. Participatory evaluation: the experience of

ACORD Red Sea Hills Development Programme. Port Sudan:ACORD. 14pp.

Sudan, community development, equity, gender aspects, local organisation,

methods, participatory evaluation, pastoral livelihoods, urbanisation,

visualisation

A report on the planning, process and results of a participatory evaluation thatwas anticipated by the local project team as a learning experience. The teamalready had several months’ training and experience in using participatorymethods. The terms of reference formulated by the project team and agencystaff were discussed at length between team members and external evaluatorsand translated into questions. Some problems with the approach were the hightime requirement and the extensive travelling needed because of the lowpopulation density in the project area.

Plastow J & Pantuliano S. 2001. Experimenting with PIM: the

ACORD Sudan Urban-Rural Linkages Programme experience of

adapting Participatory Impact Monitoring. Paper prepared for Work-shop on Appropriate Methodologies for Urban Agriculture Research,Planning, Implementation and Evaluation, October 2001, Nairobi,Kenya. 15pp.

Sudan, impact assessment, monitoring, visualisation

An NGO working with Beja agropastoralists and urban dwellers in EasternSudan has, together with local community-based organisations, adapted theParticipatory Impact Monitoring (PIM) approach to suit the local conditions andpartners’ skills. GTZ originally developed PIM for literate partners. In the non-literate Beja communities, emphasis was put on pictures and locallyunderstandable diagrams as bases for communication and for recording theinformation being monitored. This experience shows how other participatoryapproaches can enrich the PIM approach. PIM proved particularly useful as away of building the capacities of local groups to manage their owndevelopment activities.


Raina RS, Sharma A & Mohammed Z. 1998. Integrated,

participatory, seasonal observations for land systems.(http://www.gisdevelopment. net/application/lis/rural/lisr0003pf.htm)

India, information, livelihood systems, rural development, seasonality

Draws attention to seasonality as a key concept in rural development pro-grammes. The case of an information facility in Rahepwa village in HarwanaState, India, illustrates the functioning of an Integrated Participatory SeasonalObservation System (IPSOS), a season-sensitive database with informationgenerated by different types of farmers, women, pastoralists, artisans, landlesslabourers, change agents, input suppliers etc. Participation of rural people ingenerating and using their own seasonal information reveals how differentgroups interpret the same seasonal context in different ways. This informationbrings scope for mutual understanding and negotiation during problem formu-lation, implementation of counter-seasonal strategies and PM&E. It is assumedthat information flows, access and denials of information, intergenerationaltransfer of knowledge, gender roles in knowledge and skills etc have been insti-tutionalised in each village over centuries. IPSOS therefore tries to build on thestrength of existing rural institutions for generating and managing information.

Reckers U. 1997. Participatory project evaluation: letting local

people have their say. Development in Practice 7 (3): 12–14.

Kenya, evaluation, indicators, pastoral development

The Dryland Ecosystems and Desertification Control Programme ActivityCentre of the United National Environmental Programme (UNEP) devisedmethods for participatory evaluation of development projects in dry pastoralareas of Kenya, based on a case study among the Arial people. It was arguedthat projects promoting community participation in implementation should alsoallow the community to evaluate them. Ethnographic techniques alloweddeduction of indicators according to which the pastoralists assessed theproject. The methods are also laid out in an NGO guide for community-drivenevaluated entitled “Participatory project evaluation: allowing local people tohave their say” (118pp), published in 1996 by ELCI and UNEP in Nairobi.

Roche C. 1991. ACORD's experience in local planning in Mali and

Burkina Faso. RRA Notes 11: 33–41.

Burkina Faso, Mali, extension, forage, methods, planning

Report on ACORD support to informal and formal rural groups, mainly ofagropastoralists, to strengthen their participation in local planning. A mecha-nism for "auto-evaluation" was developed. GRAAP animation techniques wereused to help villagers prepare a "fiche" or file for baseline data, a "fiche-action"with details of activities planned by the villagers, an agreement for dividing re-


sponsibilities between them and ACORD, and a "fiche de suivi" with PM&E indi-cators. An example is given of local criteria for evaluating regeneration of for-age species. Strengths and weaknesses of the approach are frankly discussed.

Schoonmaker Freudenberger K & M. 1994. Livelihoods, livestock

and change: the versatility and richness of historical matrices.RRA Notes 20: 144–148.

Gambia, Senegal, historical analysis, livelihood analysis, methods, pastoral

livelihoods

Historical matrices used in The Gambia and Senegal showed the relativeimportance of livestock in families' livelihood strategies and changes in thesestrategies over more than 25 years. The matrices were based on time periodsdefined by the local people. It provided them with a way of "writing" the historyof how they make their living, as well as a concrete basis for discussing whythings have changed and what this means for them.

Simonazzi A. 1993. Participatory evaluation: theory, methods and

experience: PRA, GRAAP and the Kenyan case. London: Universityof London. Mimeo. 15pp.

Kenya, evaluation, mapping, methods, wealth ranking, workshops

In participatory evaluation of projects in Maasailand and Kitui, local NGO staffwere involved in deciding which communities and which community membersshould be visited. The project "beneficiaries" were treated not as respondentsbut as participants, i.e. their values and opinions were sought, rather than an-swers to pre-set questions. The project staff and local people jointly analysedthe information gathered by the evaluation team. Mapping and role-play provedto be useful tools, but not wealth ranking, mainly because of the Maasai's re-luctance to classify their neighbours openly, misunderstandings about the con-cepts of "family" and "clan" and lack of time. GRAAP methods were success-fully used, particularly during meetings for sharing and analysing information.

Soura A, Boureima D & Banzhaf M. 1998. Supporting local people in

their management of natural resources: project for land-use and

natural resource management. In: Forster R et al (eds), Beyond thetoolkit: experiences with institutionalising participatory approaches ofGTZ supported projects in rural areas (Eschborn: GTZ), pp 71–85.

Burkina Faso, action research, organisational learning, stakeholder platform

The project for Land Use and Natural Resource Management in the Sahel ofBurkina Faso (PSB-GTZ) facilitated participatory land-use planning based on


the “Gestion des Terroirs” approach and tried to integrate transhumant pasto-ralists into the planning process. Organisational learning about this experiencewas based on PM&E, participatory evaluation of tools and approaches, reflec-tion on the mode of collaboration within the project, an information-exchangeand reflection group on pastoralism involving other agencies intervening in theSahel of Burkina Faso, and documenting the learning experience.

Stafford Smith DM, Clewett JF, Moore AD, McKeon GM & Clark R.1997. DroughtPlan: building on grazier participation to manage for

climate variability. Occasional Paper CV01/97. Canberra: Land andWater Resources Research and Development Corporation. 148pp.

Australia, climate variability, extensive grazing, predictors, risk management

Reports on the results of a participatory research project to develop decision-support systems for livestock-keepers in arid Australia, who must cope withgreat variability in climate and hence in feed supply. The project was in fiveparts: detailed consultations with producers in Queensland, consultations andanalysis nationwide, understanding biological links, developing the activitiesand tools, and analysis and delivery to producers in Queensland. The output isa set of computer programmes that can be used (and apparently are used) byfarmers. For example, rainfall and vegetation yield (simulated on the basis ofover 100 years of rainfall records) helps a producer decide whether to sellstock, buy stock in, give supplementary feed or move the animals to a differentranch. This case from an industrialised country shows how scientific data canbe integrated into a monitoring and decision-support system for livestock-keepers. However, it is very data-intensive and therefore hardly applicable indeveloping countries, where such data sets are rarely available.

Stür WW, Horne PM, Hacker JB & Kerridge PC. 2000. Working with

farmers: the key to adoption of forage technologies: proceedings

of an international workshop held in Cagayan de Oro City,

Mindanao, Philippines from 12–15 October 1999. ACIARProceedings No. 95. Canberra: ACIAR. 325pp.

Southeast Asia, forage, impact assessment, monitoring, participatory

experimentation

A workshop marking the completion of the Forages for Smallholders Projectbrought together experiences in testing and adapting forage technologies withsmallholder livestock-keepers. Most papers focus on the technologies, but asmall number deal with the process and PM&E of forage technologydevelopment, and with assessing its impact.


Tachez C. 1995. De la gestion des feux de brousse à la gestion du

terroir. France: VSF. 14pp.

Guinea, fire management, livestock, range management

Account of livestock-keepers’ experimentation with use of fire in a sparsely-populated subhumid area of West Africa. Elders and development agentsestablished a village land plan as a communication tool for villagers to discussmanagement options. They marked areas with risk of late bush fires on themap, and villagers planned where to set early fires to reduce the risks. Later,sites of actual late fires were marked. The villagers assessed the results of theexperiment in terms of reduction of accidentally burned areas, and drewlessons for improving fire management. Local people learned to continue thisprocess without external facilitation.

Tielkes E. 1998. Communally managed rotational grazing on

reclaimed pastures in the northern Sahel. Paper presented atworkshop “Evaluation of Technical and Institutional Options for SmallFarmers in West Africa”, University of Hohenheim, April 1998. 5pp.

Niger, common property resources, erosion control, local institutions,

monitoring, rotational grazing

The GTZ-supported Tahoua Rural Development Project in southwest Nigerpromotes communal resource management through installation of localcommittees. The project is experimenting with rotational wet-season grazing ofre-claimed pasture. It has developed an approach to introduce consensualpasture management by sedentary and transhumant livestock-keepers. Thisincludes joint monitoring of pasture condition by herders, local managementcommittees, extension agents and project staff. Having just been introduced atthe time the paper was written, the experience with this approach is notdocumented.

Tielkes E, Schlecht E & Hiernaux P (eds). 2001. Élevage et gestion de

parcours du Sahel: implications pour le développement. Beuren:Verlag Grauer. 381pp.

West Africa, livestock husbandry, range management

Proceedings of a workshop in Niger, including 39 presentations and the resultsof groupwork, mainly in French with English summaries. Many presentationsstress the need for participatory approaches, institutional and organisationaldevelopment, committees, multi-stakeholder platforms etc. PM&E is not dis-cussed in detail, but it is clear that a number of institutions for pasture man-agement described in the papers could hardly function without it. The monitor-ing that is described remains top-down, such as a programme in Senegal inwhich high-tech methods are used to monitor vegetation and produce maps as


a basis for range management plans, or it remains scientific, as in a contribu-tion on 17 years of monitoring woody vegetation, also carried out in Senegal.

Timlim A. 1996. Participatory livelihood monitoring in southern

Sudan. PLA Notes 26: 39–44.

Sudan, indicators, methods, monitoring, pastoral livelihoods

To provide information for emergency responses, Oxfam developed aLivelihood Monitoring System intended to encourage Dinka pastoralists toexplore and analyse their own situation. Local monitors were recruited andtrained to collect qualitative and quantitative data using PRA methods, and toassess emergencies using a checklist. Oxfam identified key indicators throughlocal resource persons, and discussions and ranking exercises with differentsocio-economic groups. The monitors' sources of information are dailyobservations at key sites (e.g. markets, stock auctions, waterpoints), semi-structured interviews with contact farmers, herd tracking, and visits to keyinformants for specialist advice on certain indicators. Oxfam analyses the data;local capacity for this has not yet been developed.

Vogt G & Vogt K. 2000. Hannu Biyu Ke Tchuda Juna – strength in

unity: shared management of common property resources – a

case study from Takiéta, Niger. Securing the Commons 2. London:IIED. 44pp.

Niger, common property resources, stakeholder platform

Process documentation of external support to decentralised NRM involvingsedentary farmers and mobile pastoralists in an arid area. Decentralisedmanagement is possible only if the local stakeholder groups have the time tounderstand and negotiate their roles, are able to make their own inventory ofresources and can design and implement their own monitoring ofenvironmental change over time. The project took five years to reach this point;the report stops when the joint monitoring begins.

Waters-Bayer A & Bayer W. 1997. Participatory planning, moni-

toring and evaluation of grassland management in West Africa.Proceedings XVIII International Grassland Congress, 8–18 June 1997,Winnipeg & Saskatoon, Canada, Vol. 2, pp 18.17–18.18.

Burkina Faso, methods, range management, stakeholder platform

Brief account of facilitating PM&E by resource users, including Fulani cattle-keepers, of land-use management in the Sahel region of Burkina Faso. For adescription of the subsequent process, see Soura et al (1998), Banzhaf et al(2000) and Kiema (2000).


Waters-Bayer A, Bayer, W, Ibrahim E, Tamiem AA, Sheik EH & BadrySA. 1998. Participatory evaluation of ACORD’s Red Sea Hills Pro-

gramme, May–June 1998: final report. London: ACORD. 72pp.

Sudan, evaluation, methods, organisational development, pastoral livelihoods

A participatory approach was taken in an external evaluation of an ACORD-supported project in the Red Sea Hills of Eastern Sudan. Men and women inthe Beja communities, project staff and two external consultants collaboratedin planning and implementing the evaluation. The participatory tools to showenvironmental and socio-economic impact included drawings of benefits,proportional piling and before-and-after matrices. The village committeesassessed their own development using SWOT analyses, Venn diagrams and a“moons exercise” for self-evaluation of organisational functioning.

Wild RG & Mutebi J. 1996. Conservation through community use of

plant resources: establishing collaborative management at Bwindi

Impenetrable and Mgahinga Gorilla National Parks, Uganda.

People and Plants Working Paper 5. Paris: UNESCO. 45pp.

Uganda, forest management, indigenous knowledge, resource conservation

A pilot process of participatory evaluation and planning of resource useresulted in written agreements for low-level use and collaborative managementof forest resources. Describes Rapid Vulnerability Assessment, a systematicmethod of integrating indigenous and scientific knowledge in order to assessthe vulnerability of plant species to utilisation by people, and to determinewhether harvesting is or can be carried out at some level below the maximumsustainable yield. In each parish, the inhabitants formed a Forest Society,based on an existing community structure, to manage resource use. Thesesocieties document resource-use decisions and record quantities of resourcesharvested (mainly medicinal plants and basketry materials). A new PRAtechnique, Ground Relationship Map, was developed to monitor changes in therelationship between the park officials and the local people and to find outreasons for these changes. The monitoring appears to be "driven" by the parkofficials; it is recognised that additional work is still needed to involve resourceusers and traditional experts in resource assessment and monitoring.

Zeidler J. 2001. Managing desertification in Namibia. In: ELCI (ed),Community-based land and water management in Africa: case studiesof good practice (www.monitorinternational.org/namibia.htm 19/12/01).

Namibia, biodiversity, income diversification, monitoring, pastoral livelihoods

As part of the Namibian Program to Combat Desertification, an NGO consor-tium is developing systems of monitoring natural resources and strengtheninglocal capacities to manage them in a sustainable way. Scientific indicators of


range condition were compared with local ones. Needs-based monitoringsystems were developed with local stock-keepers who were interested inmonitoring natural resources. Methods were designed that could be easily usedalso by illiterate people. To distinguish degraded from non-degraded land in theextremely variable semi-arid environment, a broad set of indicators in an Indexof Biological Integrity (including measurements of soil resilience, vegetationproductivity and invertebrate biodiversity) proved superior to assessmentsbased solely on vegetation. Socio-economic indicators are being identified andtested, but it seems to be more difficult for community members to identify withthe need to track such data, which could help them identify viable alternativesto purely agriculture-based livelihoods.

Zessin K-H, Heuer C & Schrecke W. 1993. The Central Rangelands

Development Project (CRDP) – veterinary component. In: BaumannMPO, Janzen J & Schwartz HJ (eds), Pastoral production in CentralSomalia (Eschborn: GTZ), pp 97–111.

Somalia, animal health, monitoring, pastoral development

Documentation of efforts by GTZ in 1982–89 to build up an interlinked veteri-nary service between government agencies and nomadic animal health auxil-iaries (NAHAs) operating with revolving drug funds. Having built up a close re-lationship with the nomadic herders, the CRDP staff could establish an “earlywarning system” for outbreaks of disease or other serious problems in animalhealth and production. The NAHA system was the first structured primaryanimal health care system under African pastoral conditions that did not limitauxiliaries to giving vaccinations or operating drug dispensaries, and focusedon their usefulness in multi-linked, epidemiological disease surveillance.


ANNEX

Electronic sources of further information on pastoralism

Eldis Pastoralism Resource Guide

http://www.eldis.org/pastoralism/index.htm

Information about publications, projects, people and photos, with links toseveral other websites. Host of the website for Community-Based AnimalHealth and Participatory Epidemiology (CAPE), which specialises in primary-level veterinary services in pastoral areas in the Horn of Africa (seepublications in this bibliography by ActionAid and Catley).

Ethnovetweb

http://www.ethnovetweb.com/

Information about ethnoveterinary medicine: how people worldwide keep theiranimals healthy and productive and how development can build on thisinformation.

Local Livestock for Empowerment of Rural People (LIFE)

http://www.lifeinitiative.org/

Information compiled by the League for Pastoral Peoples, focused on domesticanimal diversity and promotion of pastoralist-centred approaches to conser-vation of animal breeds.

Pastoral Development Network

http://www.odi.org.uk/pdn/

From 1976 to 1996, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) managed a net-work of researchers, development administrators and extensionists interestedin issues of pastoralism and rangelands. With the support of the FAO RuralPolicy and Environment Group, this website has been set up to revitalise PDN.Most of the PDN papers since 1985 are now available online. Contributions toFAO electronic conferences about pastoralism, e.g. on coping with drought,can also be found on this website.

Participation Kiosk

http://www.gtz.de/participation/

The second printing of the publication Planning with pastoralists: PRA and

more – a review of methods focused on Africa is available at the ParticipationKiosk of the GTZ website: http://www.gtz.de/participation/english/c03.htm

pm&m fao

Documents

evaluation pme

review of experiences

documented experiences

pme of local institutions

pme of natural resources112

review of methods

participatory planning

field experiences